This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DMSBel (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 4 July 2011 (→Abortion - death). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. For more urgent matters, please send me an e-mail.

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• Misplaced Pages:Tutorial
• Misplaced Pages:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Misplaced Pages:Policy Library
• Misplaced Pages:How to rename (move) a page
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

Notes:

• The link to the POV-section template is {{POV-section}}.
• {{subst:test3}} is preferred.
• Errors that need correction should be treated like <strike>this</strike> or <s>this</s>.
• Sortable

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Column#Usage

Archives

Talk Page Archives

FK A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

New Messages

• User_talk:Str1977/sandbox
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Banu_Qurayza
• User_talk:Str1977/sandbox#Paul Robeson

Paul Robeson

Please see WP:NPOV/N#Paul Robeson and related articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Robeson

On Robeson and Fefer see also, it seems more favorable to R.: Arno Lustiger: Rotbuch: Stalin und die Juden. 1998 (no google-preview, at least not in Germany). The book has been translated into English. Lustiger is a serious historian. He has posted on the death of Fefer and his comrades at http://forum.hagalil.com/archiv-a/messanges/3320/10458.html .--Radh (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Paul Robeson archive at the Akademie der Künste in East-Berlin was founded (in 1965) by ("white") Victor Grossman (born: Stephen Wechsler), a "red diaper New York radical", who deserted the U.S. Army in West-Germany in 1952 and fled east - feering prosecution because of his Korean-war/1951 "loyalty oath falsification", he says - he also somewhere says he had met (the top Comintern operative for the USA in the 1930's) Gerhart Eisler, when Eisler spoke at Harvard. Strangely enough later in Berlin Eisler was the boss of his boss when he worked as a radio journalist. Memoir: Crossing the River, U o Mass. Press, 2003. (the Rosenbergs are "a progressive young Jewish couple")

Robeson's assistant on Freedom - articles and on his autobiography, L. Lloyd Brown (1913) was another life-long communist around Robeson; Frank Marshall Davis also was a "friend" it seems. WP has the absolutely astonishing statement, that R. told Davis c.1948 to go to Hawaii!. Davis was in front organizations, he def. was a party member in 1951, probably much earlier. He helped organize the underground cp in Hawaii.

Brown was a member since 1929 (Young Communist League); editor of the New Masses and Masses and Mainstream (1946-1954). He left the party in 1953 and (or: as?) he began to work for Robeson. Another sign, that R. indeed was a secret party member?

All this is not that astonishing or remarkable, although his cooperation with L. Lloyd Brown probably is, but there will be hundreds more.--Radh (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Law

Sprtacus Schoolnet, Esquerra Party mentiones Law in its entry on Martin (Marty) Hourihan. And the site has a lot of Spanish Civil War activists not here (or with very bad articles, like Steve Nelson (activist)).--Radh (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent overhaul of Robeson

Good edits and good luck with convincing the other editor of your good faith. You could keep pointing her towards good and featured biographies that use an even-handed approach. It was User:Moni3 who put in a massive effort to get Harvey Milk to FA, and she might be willing to advise on this one. I think if you put it into FA right now it would be mainly the length that would hold it back. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your message

I'll review Paul Robeson when I can, but I'm about to go on a Wikibreak so I'm not sure when I'll get the chance. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Hi. Concerning your message in Yobot's talk page: Per WP:REFPUNCT "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation" and this what Yobot did. Yobot uses WP:AWB which implements this guideline. As far as I remember there was a big discussion t some point and consensus changed from "use any style you want" to "use the Chicago style". Yobot found the page in WP:CHECKWIKI database which records pages with errors of any kind (i.e. pages that don't follow the manual of style are reported there). -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is that discussion? Str1977 10:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure. I found this discussion which looks relevant. I only know the result because after that we, in AWB, after the punctuation move in general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson

Thanks for your message. Yes, let's work step by step on it. No probs with you undoing my edits. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

you have a history

Says Catherine Huebscher (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).--Radh (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Political views of Paul Robeson

Hi Str. If you drop me a quick word, just a bit more specifically about the section(s) of the article you think need addressing, I will have a look at it. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tom Nash

The article Tom Nash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicate disambiguation page - see Thomas Nash (disambiguation). It would be better for Tom Nash (American football) to be moved here.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anthem 09:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the two extra entries on the dab page proposed for deletion unto the Thomas Nash dab page. This should settle matters. Str1977 07:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in the discussion. I hope you will visit again today. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really must do your reverts, could I ask that you at least do them carefully? Your last one removed a whole host of other good edits as well, such as the addition of clarifying wikilinks and the decapitalization of section headers. Speaking of your reverting though, that's the second time in recent days that you have reverted without discussing anything on the talk page. Such a thing is unacceptable. I would like you to note Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Abortion/Log, which provides for sanctions for continuing such behavior. NW (Talk) 11:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"outrageous"? How is it outrageous? NW (Talk) 16:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is outrageous to state that without clearly indicating that we are talking about maternal death. And you clearly no that - in terms of fetal or embryonic death, abortion has a death rate of 99.99% Str1977 16:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that reliable sources generally don't draw this distinction, although I also don't really have a problem with specifying "maternal" mortality. I do seriously question whether the abortion article will benefit from yet another person incapable of restraining themselves from excessive rhetoric and edit-warring, but whatever. MastCell  17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What MastCell said. This is what the source said: "Data from the Abortion Mortality Surveillance System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the risk of death associated with abortion is low, at 0.6 per 100,000 abortions. The risk of death from childbirth is 11 times greater than the risk of death from abortion. The causes of death from abortion are equally distributed among hemorrhage, infection, embolism, and anesthesia complications. The risk of major complications is less than 1%, and there is no evidence of subsequent childbearing problems among women who have had abortions (18)." NW (Talk) 17:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable" sources of a certain persuasion will simply not care and the other will take it for granted what kind of death rate we are talking about. But an encyclopedia bent on neutrality MUST be precise. Str1977 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So if a reliable source "simply doesn't care" about something we think is important, is it our role as editors to "correct" the source's perceived omission? Am I understanding your argument correctly? MastCell  17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I said it time and again, RS are important but a) it is not RS that write this encyclopedia but editors who have to make certain judgements, b) RS are not bound by NPOV while WP is and hence we cannot just parrot what the sources say but have to think how to present the information given in a neutal manner. Str1977 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's move from vague generalities to the specifics at hand. Are you are better positioned to present public-health information neutrally than the CDC or Annals of Internal Medicine? MastCell  20:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

These are not bound by NPOV policy, WP however is. And nothing NW cited actually contradicts my point as the context of his quote makes it clear that they are restricting their view to maternal death. There is no such restriction in our article text. Str1977 07:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course the CDC and Annals aren't "bound by NPOV", but you didn't answer my question. Do you think you're in a better position to present public-health information neutrally than they are? You're proposing that we look at the best available sources and then "adjust" them to conform with our idea of neutrality (at least that's what I'm hearing, in the absence of any direct answer to my question). MastCell  20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we apply the NPOV policy when writing or changing an article and that we provide obvious information left out if it is needed to give the whole story. And I don't see anyone suggesting that these sources are not restricted to maternal death/physical harm. Str1977 07:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple: If the Annals are useful for an article so is JAMA. Yet when an article is mentioned in JAMA - what is the problem, it doesn't necessarily reflect the position of the editorial team. That's JJLs argument. Big deal. No article in any peer-reviewed journal necessarily reflects any editorial position. That something is in a peer-reviewed journal gives it reliability, not that it reflects any editorial position. So all are on at least a equal footing. Why do we have to downplay fetal life, or play maternal life against the life of the fetus. There is no reason, or need for it. The article can address both. Any failure in regard to one or the other or undue weighting makes the article POV. DMSBel (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That by the way was why I asked my question, Mastcell seems to be attributing a status to Annals that it doesn't inherently possess that it is more of an authority on Public Health, but that is confusing Public Health with Medicine. Annals is even more specifically oriented - internal medicine, not medicine generally, least of all public health.DMSBel (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I am against downplaying and against playing off A against B. I am for mentioning the relevant facts in a NPOV manner. Which means "death" goes in (important fact for debate), "viability" goes out (not a fact at all) and preceding a discussion of how save abortion is for the m... woman with a clear statement that the following is limited to exactly that maternal health. That abortion is very unsave for the fetus should be clear even to those that don't give a damn and I never suggested adding such a disclaimer - as long as the pertinent "death" fact is included, that is. Str1977 17:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and as someone involved in earlier discussion, your participation is vital in the current round. I should have made my comment clearer, it was more in responce to what MastCell was claiming rather than directed to you Str1977. Whether you have been asked to join (that happens all over wikipedia) or not has nothing to do with your right to be there, you have been involved in the discussion in the past you need to be involved in the current discussion. Best. DMSBel (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)