Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davide King (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 21 November 2021 (test). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In regards to statements by Nug, I thank them for trying to address our points, though I am obviously not satisfied by their answer.

I have a few questions that I have they can address in the next rounds.

• The problem is that there is already some implicit consensus for the current version, and it appears they are in the minority now ("However it should be noted that half the participants here agree that the previous version generally conforms to a neutral point of view." Two out of four, sure, and not all arguments hold the same weight — problems have been acknowledged by both AfDs and the moderator)

1. Why do you keep bring up by edit percentages? As if there is a limit or I violated policies! The article was free to edit (even some IPs made edits in the last months, and now), everyone was free to revert me (the one who did was the IPs, who never took it to talk page to discuss and seemed to want an edit war rather than rationally discuss the edits, and they have since been reverted by at least two other users, and yet another users only separated paragraphs rather than revert the lead in toto) — there was one revert per day, you were free to do it but for whatever reason did not do it, and eventually a majority of article's reader seemed to agree my version was fine or better, stabilizing it, therefore you cannot arbitrary ask someone to revert it in toto but it is no up to you gain consensus.
2. Why do you bring Mass killing? Unlike MKuCR, there have been no serious issues to bring up apart from you now (you have been reverted by neither me nor Siebert), so you are taking our position but in revers, e.g. there is a contradiction between the two articles but is not MKuCR the problem; the problem is that the latter is a sub-article of the former, while you are acting as if it was the reverse — again, no significant issues have been brought up at Mass killing (you are the only one who did it so far), which is uncontroversial, therefore my argument of contradiction is still perfectly valid and correct.
3. Why do we have only MKuCR? As you said, Rummel also categorized other authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, therefore
4. Why do you support dividing mass killings only by Communism? Why can we not have a single article that focuses on all regime types rather than only Communism? You recognized Rummel did not limit himself to Communism, so why should we to? If such additional article are created by then deleted, the same should be done for MKuCR because a double standard would be exposed. The problem with this goes back to Rummel — whether you like it or not, he is a minority and has been recognized by discussion (those linked by Siebert) and by one of the core sources of MKuCR
5. Why should we rely on Rummel and not Harff, which is recognized as the most used database, and she makes no such categorizations? It would still fail NPOW and WEIGHT to create an article based on Rummel categorizations (e.g. not limited to Communism — general article about mass killings in all regime types) with Rummel as core source.
6. Why do you now reject Karlsson 2008 because it supports our views of Rummel? It shows you are selective and biased, namely that you liked that source because you thought it supported yours but now that you realized it does not, apparently it must be rejected in toto.
7. Can you provide some sources in support of your very strong statement? "The only mention of Rummel is through the criticisms of him by a handful of obscure authors, and when attempts are made to insert a material from more prominent scholars to balance that view ... ." If those really are obscure, it should be very easy to provide more reliable sources. Do you realize that Harff is a follower of Rummel, and even she recognized all the criticism from many respected scholars which you literally dismissed as obscure?

P.S. The moderator themselves recognized that mass killing is not as straightforward as Cloud200 made it out to be, and the previous version is not only a NPOV problem but a basic verification problem, which is probably even worse. I ask the moderator compare the two lead (current version — previous version). The previous one fails basic verification because it states as facts all those events where mass killings (Jones and Valentino says only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's were), therefore I ask that we move from this, for (1) the new lead has been stable (they were free to revert us and discuss on the talk page, there is no number of edits Siebert and I can or cannot make), and (2) it is up to them to gain consensus for revert it in toto, as an arbitrary such revert would be ... well, arbitrary and uncalled for in light of NPOV and VERIFY violations, which the moderator is free to check.

Davide King (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)