Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Newslinger talk 09:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, see also entries are only usually added to articles directly relevant to the topic that can't be linked in the body, or occasionally in other circumstances, not the way you're adding them, often to broad concept articles; see the relevant guideline. I've undone most of your see also entry additions. See also sections are considered very bad style in some quarters; the average experienced Wikipedian rarely bothers with them (probably engaging with them in about one out of 200 edits at the very most) and you should do the same. Graham 87 03:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Graham I do not see anywhere specifically where I did not follow the guideline. Can you point to the specific part of the guideline that you claim I did not follow?
Magonz (
talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- See the paragraph that begins "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In my 16 years of editing Wikipedia I have never encountered an editor treating see also sections as you have, so the way you use them is therefore highly eccentric. They are indeed quite controversial here ... see most of
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 14, for example.
Graham
87 02:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your own source: "the linked topic is relevant to the one at hand. " Check. So you have not produced any evidence except your personal anecdotical experience with no source. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magonz (
talk •
contribs) 12:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. You don't get to cherry-pick bits of the guidelines to suit your cause. Also, a lot of the norms here aren't explicitly written down and never will be;
ignore all rules is a core policy for a reason.
Graham
87 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not cherry picking. You are saying that I am not following "the guidelines", and yet have not pointed to any specific part of a policy, and now attempt to say put the onus on me to justify my editions. You should back up your own claims.
Magonz (
talk) 13:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I gave you the relevant paragraph which I will now quote in full here: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and
common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be
relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one." Note that the second sentence contains "and", not "or"; all the conditions in it should be true, not just one. There's also this sentence further down: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."
Graham
87 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Which specific part of the paragraph are you claiming to back up your deletions?
Magonz (
talk) 13:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- All of it, especially the bit about common sense, which is the accumulated wisdom of many experienced Wikipedia editors. You are not an experienced Wikipedia editor (assuming this is your first username), as you've made under 300 edits in under six months, so the fact that you're the first person in Wikipedia's history to even think of doing such edits should tell you everything. This will be my last comment in this section. Graham 87 14:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Which specific part of the paragraph are you claiming to back up your deletions?
Magonz (
talk) 13:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I gave you the relevant paragraph which I will now quote in full here: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and
common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be
relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one." Note that the second sentence contains "and", not "or"; all the conditions in it should be true, not just one. There's also this sentence further down: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."
Graham
87 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not cherry picking. You are saying that I am not following "the guidelines", and yet have not pointed to any specific part of a policy, and now attempt to say put the onus on me to justify my editions. You should back up your own claims.
Magonz (
talk) 13:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. You don't get to cherry-pick bits of the guidelines to suit your cause. Also, a lot of the norms here aren't explicitly written down and never will be;
ignore all rules is a core policy for a reason.
Graham
87 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your own source: "the linked topic is relevant to the one at hand. " Check. So you have not produced any evidence except your personal anecdotical experience with no source. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magonz (
talk •
contribs) 12:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- See the paragraph that begins "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In my 16 years of editing Wikipedia I have never encountered an editor treating see also sections as you have, so the way you use them is therefore highly eccentric. They are indeed quite controversial here ... see most of
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 14, for example.
Graham
87 02:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Translated List of films featuring colonialism to es:Anexo:Películas sobre colonialismo
- Translated List of films featuring slavery to es:Anexo:Películas sobre esclavitud
- Translated Exterminate All the Brutes (2021 film) to es:Exterminad a Todos los Salvajes
- Translated An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States to es:La historia popular indígena de Estados Unidos
- Created Western Supremacy (book)
- Created American Holocaust (book)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of films featuring colonialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genoese.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The utter contempt you have shown towards the advice of experienced Wikipedia editors in this section, as shown by your flippant accusation of trolling, along with continuing to make the edits you have been warned about, shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Therefore you have been blocked accordingly. If you want to make your own organisational system, start another website; you are not welcome here. Graham 87 11:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- To relate colonialism, imperialism, racism and white supremacy with one another, in articles that are directly related, is something that belongs in a broad introduction to the topic for all peoples that are seeking a general introduction to the field in an online encyclopedia. To be punished for this is plain lack of diversity in the historiography of universal history. This is not a Western encyclopeaedia for Western only point of views. Many experts in history have demonstrated the silencing of history that does not fit the mainstream Western historiography. Most people in the world, and therefore, most history in the world, is not Western. And to introduce readers to a view that is not only not accurate, but not representative is not correct. Can you address this points specifically before blocking me? I am willing to back up all these claims right here in my Talk Page with published reliable sources (university press, peer reviewed articles, renowned publishers' books, etc.). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magonz (
talk •
contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't appear to realise that (a) you've already been blocked and (b) your attitude, not your opinion on see also links, is the ultimate reason makes me thoroughly disinclined to unblock you. Yes relationships between these topics are important to note in context, as they already are here, but adding see also linksthat go against or at least cause controversy regarding the relevant guideline isn't the way to do it. Graham 87 18:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe you were blocked for relating original appropriation to colonization! These links certainly "would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" as the guideline states, and this block looks to me like an abuse of admin powers, especially since it doesn't look like you were edit warring or attempting to reinstate the edits you made to this page after they were reverted. Including relevant links in stub articles is actually what see-also sections are for. I hope you'll continue to extend Wikipedia's coverage of the genocide of indigenous people. I'll try to remember and occasionally check your contribution page in case I can ever back you up on disputes such as this one. Larataguera ( talk) 16:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Larataguera Thanks, yes balance is important, and there is no connection between clearly related topics. Magonz ( talk) 03:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
"
 | 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 |
"Western supremacy" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Western supremacy. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Western supremacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Sdrqaz (
talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Western Supremacy (book) (January 4)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Western Supremacy (book) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Western Supremacy (book), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Magonz!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
RPSkokie (
talk) 05:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi Magonz. I notice that you do actually include two reviews for this book, so it should qualify as a notable article for the AFC. Maybe the reviewers didn't notice. I suggest making the review by Flavia Monceri more accessible by including an active URL and perhaps quoting from it in the reviews section. Likewise for the review by Chisti. These are the two reviews that should qualify the article for AFC. I'm concerned that the other reviews in the Media Reviews section won't be accepted because the page that sources those reviews sells the book. I suspect that there are more reviews of the French title, and I also suggest including some of these and quoting in translation to ensure that this article gets through the AFC process. For example, this review would be good. There are probably others in French. Thanks for writing this article on an important book! Feel free to let me know if you think I can help any more! Larataguera ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Actually, I see now you have included a review from Le Monde in the lead. Not sure why I didn't see that before. I don't think you should have any trouble with the AFC now. Thanks again! Larataguera ( talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
-
Larataguera Thanks, I did the updates, but haven't heard back from the editors.
Magonz (
talk) 21:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Larataguera: Ping.
Magonz (
talk) 21:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think it looks good. I Hope my suggestions were helpful. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a backlog at AFC, but I hope they get around to this one soon. Thanks again! Larataguera ( talk) 02:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Larataguera: Ping.
Magonz (
talk) 21:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ RPSkokie: Hi, I have added the references from several journals and newspapers as recommended, please review, thank you. Magonz ( talk) 22:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Western Supremacy (book) has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
asilvering ( talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: American Holocaust (book) has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
RPSkokie ( talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't confuse the fact that I engage with comments made about my edits. The ones that reverted my edits, are nowhere to be found yet... they said, "go to talk page to discuss", and they do not discuss. And now you are coming here to my talk page with a four word comment with no specifics.
Magonz (
talk) 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am asking you read something, if you reply to every comment on a talk page then that can be seen as wp:disruptive, I am asking you to be careful so as not to breach our guidelines. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- By hte way, as far as I can tell both users who reverted you have replied on the talk page.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- One has made a claim that I have an "agenda", when all I am doing is improving articles. The other said that the view that the British Empire practiced genocide in some cases, is a fringe or minority view. Even commonwealth countries governments are issuing apologies as we speak. Seems like they have not kept up to date with the scholarly progress. Magonz ( talk) 13:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I listed three issues that they reverted, and they only pick one each, ignoring the other two.
Magonz (
talk) 13:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- You do understand that to gain consensus you have to address all of the issues people raise, to their satisfaction on the issues they have. They only have to reject one of your arguments, not all of them. Per
wp:brd and
WP:ONUS it is down to you to convince them. This is my last comment on this, I have asked you to read out policies, and to make sure you do not breach them, it is up to you if you choose to do so.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- So are you saying anyone can revert edits, and then the person who edited has to gain consensus from not only the one that reverted the edit, but gain consensus in general from an undetermined number of editors ? At what point is consensus official ? Who makes the call? Is the process with clear stated rules ?
Magonz (
talk) 13:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will respond as you have asked about how we act. Consensus is not a clear-cut thing. But (per
wp:consensus) "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", in other words, arguments must be policy-based, and must address all doubts. If consensus is clear (as in every user, or a vast majority of users) agree then an involved editor can close (see
WP:CLOSE). If it is less clear you can ask for a formal close here
WP:RFCL. Or you can seek
WP:DR. You can also escalate an a
wp:rfc which will attract more voices and eyes to a discussion.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus policy says that common sense shall be used, and clearly, the UK being WW2 winners and also English being the language of the English, you will find some resistance to adding a single criticism of imperialism in this article. But it suffices to see the official public apologies of the Australian, Canadian, USA, NZ governments about their colonial past to know that the record is indisputable. I don't have time either to convince people that the sun is hot, or water is wet. But will try again when I have time. Magonz ( talk) 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Here is a survey of apologies, of English colonial states that continue to exist from day 1 to today. Sheryl Lightfoot. (2015). Settler-State Apologies to Indigenous Peoples: A Normative Framework and Comparative Assessment. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 2(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.5749/natiindistudj.2.1.0015 Magonz ( talk) 17:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will respond as you have asked about how we act. Consensus is not a clear-cut thing. But (per
wp:consensus) "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", in other words, arguments must be policy-based, and must address all doubts. If consensus is clear (as in every user, or a vast majority of users) agree then an involved editor can close (see
WP:CLOSE). If it is less clear you can ask for a formal close here
WP:RFCL. Or you can seek
WP:DR. You can also escalate an a
wp:rfc which will attract more voices and eyes to a discussion.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- So are you saying anyone can revert edits, and then the person who edited has to gain consensus from not only the one that reverted the edit, but gain consensus in general from an undetermined number of editors ? At what point is consensus official ? Who makes the call? Is the process with clear stated rules ?
Magonz (
talk) 13:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- You do understand that to gain consensus you have to address all of the issues people raise, to their satisfaction on the issues they have. They only have to reject one of your arguments, not all of them. Per
wp:brd and
WP:ONUS it is down to you to convince them. This is my last comment on this, I have asked you to read out policies, and to make sure you do not breach them, it is up to you if you choose to do so.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
You have not read wp:bludgeon have you? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Magonz
I meant to post you a fuller explanation for removing your edit but got called away on something else. My apologies for this. The problem I had with your addition is that it doesn't really belong in this section which is about recent political activism against the doctrine. It is one statement by one historian and doesn't really add much to the section. I see that you've added some further information which looks more relevant. When I get the time I want to revise this whole section because it reads like a news section with information which is quickly outdated. WP:notnews. The information should be summarised and some statements made on the overall significance and impact of the movement. There are probably some reputable political and current affairs magazines which have provided overview articles. I would be happy to work with you on doing this. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 02:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to
The Dawning of the Apocalypse has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. The section in particular was minor, and could probably be paraphrased back in if you're careful. I would also advise double checking your sources to see if any of the rest of the article may have been unintentionally copied, in case I missed anything. Thank you!
ASUKITE 15:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I did not use anything as a source of content. I don't agree with this assessment. A synopsis of a book will be similar across authors, as they are all summarizing the same thing, the same book. Magonz ( talk) 15:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Denials of Atrocity Crimes Against Indigenous Nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mau Mau.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for all your work at Denial of atrocities against indigenous peoples! I just wanted to leave a note to be very careful about how you talk about "mainstream discourse". For example, in this edit, you offer an author's critique of "mainstream discourse". Remember that everyone here will insist that Wikipedia is mainstream discourse. So if you offer critiques of the mainstream, it will imply that the people making those critiques are not mainstream, so people will say they are fringe, and you will be accused of Righting Great Wrongs. That would all be very frustrating and unnecessary.
Critique of mainstream discourse is important of course, but in many cases Wikipedia doesn't represent mainstream discourse very well. For that article, there are many cases of atrocities against Indigenous peoples that are acknowledged by mainstream scholarship, yet continue to be denied by various governments or notable segments of the general (non-scholarly) population. So there's no need to critique "mainstream discourse" and raise this whole issue that will get you relegated to a "fringe" article. The effective argument will be to point toward mainstream scholarship, because there have been decades of decolonial and interdisciplinary studies examining these topics that are now pretty mainstream.
There are obviously issues with this approach, and Wikipedia's epistemology is fundamentally colonial and epistemicidal, but I don't think there's much to do about that on-platform. Thanks again for all you do! I hope this all makes sense and is helpful. Larataguera ( talk) 12:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify: more recent critique of older mainstream discourse which indicates that the mainstream consensus has changed would be valid and very useful. I think
Ostler's book is an example of this kind of documentation in changing scholarly consensus.
Larataguera (
talk) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- And this author writes in a book from 2022. I can only imagine the article of Holocaust denial written without Jewish authors, as Jewish people are a minority in most places where they live.
- If there is something I still do not understand feel free to elaborate.
Magonz (
talk) 16:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this author shouldn't be included. I'll need to review that source so that I better understand what she's saying about mainstream discourse, but we have to be very careful about how we include critiques of mainstream discourse, because other editors will throw out an entire article if they get the sense that something is
fringe. I'll get back to you after I review that source.
Larataguera (
talk) 17:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've reviewed that source (
full text), and I find that Stanley is critiquing the education system (in particular K-12 but also the university system). But the article itself is part of mainstream scholarship. It is published by
Routledge, which is about as mainstream as you can get. I think it's a great source, but I think you could use it more effectively. I don't actually find the statement you added that
mainstream scholarship treats Indigenous genocide broadly, without touching on the pattern of genocides against multiple distinct tribal nations
. Although this is certainly true. Maybe I missed it?The part I might use would be her statement thatResearch has overwhelmingly focused on how genocide denial in K-12 schools erases Indigenous Peoples from U.S. history
. With this statement, she tells us what research has "overwhelmingly focused on", so she is telling us the position of mainstream academia. So this is something that you could simply state in Wikivoice (in my opinion), because it appears to be the academic consensus (according to this author, who is a reliable source).She then goes on to talk about how this erasure dialogue is insufficient, and she advocates for more attention to how genocide denial perpetuates settler colonialism. Some of that is good stuff, and could also probably be included, but should be attributed (because she is not describing the academic consensus anymore, she is adding her own thoughts and trying to move the consensus toward a discussion of settler colonialism.This is how I interpret that paper. Sorry to be long-winded. I Hope this helps. Larataguera ( talk) 03:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for this. I had updated the statement to "She writes that Indigenous genocide is depicted broadly, without touching on the pattern of a series of separate genocides against multiple distinct tribal nations" to not invite unwarranted controversy. But your input is great, I can take it into consideration and bring back accordingly.
- David Stannard in a lecture regretted that he has named his milestone work "American Holocaust", in singular, because he should have named it American HolocaustS, as there were multiple genocides. This is a point that Stanley also makes. Magonz ( talk) 07:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've reviewed that source (
full text), and I find that Stanley is critiquing the education system (in particular K-12 but also the university system). But the article itself is part of mainstream scholarship. It is published by
Routledge, which is about as mainstream as you can get. I think it's a great source, but I think you could use it more effectively. I don't actually find the statement you added that
- I'm not saying this author shouldn't be included. I'll need to review that source so that I better understand what she's saying about mainstream discourse, but we have to be very careful about how we include critiques of mainstream discourse, because other editors will throw out an entire article if they get the sense that something is
fringe. I'll get back to you after I review that source.
Larataguera (
talk) 17:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Than you for this. Yes, agreed. I can add that this is perhaps the only Indigenous academic/scholar referenced in the whole article (even though technically Indigenous peoples can self-identify as such, a caveat is that the nation in question recognizes them as members. Member may have been forcefully assimilated via boarding schools, and only speak English, but they may have ties to their culture/heritage. And to say the least 90 out of 193 countries have people in them that self-identify as Indigenous), so their population for example is only 2% of US so, in that important country which she is referring to, she is certainly a minority, member of a minority that has been on the end of the atrocity issue. But she is Indigenous and the topic is Indigenous. I will look for more Indigenous scholars (for example see page 140 of that work) to see what their take is on the subject, as it is an important POV even though they are not well represented, at the table of academia/education ministries/museum boards/etc. even when the topic is about Indigenous subject matter.
Magonz (
talk) 16:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's true that Indigenous perspectives are under-represented in academia. It's also true that many Indigenous scholars have managed to penetrate academia over the years and integrate at least some of their POV into mainstream discourse (enough that non-Indigenous scholars are repeating some of their ideas). That process is slow. I think it's part of my job to ensure that those voices get due weight on Wikipedia, because they so often don't. Wikipedia is even slower to change than mainstream academic discourse, by design. Larataguera ( talk) 16:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I think you've improved that article a lot, and it seems much better organised now. There is still some language about mainstream discourse that you need to watch. For instance, Elazar Barkan claims that Indigenous genocide has not been given a place in the dominant version of history
. Barkan was writing 20 years ago, and perhaps this was true then, but it certainly isn't true now. So you need to clarify that this is someone documenting past denial. Because it reads in the present tense, which undermines the argument. That article has to be based on the premise that present mainstream discourse acknowledges atrocities against Indigenous people (which I believe it now does).
Larataguera (
talk) 12:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ok I will try to fix throughout, will need time. How recent does the RS have to be to be able to use present tense? I suppose it depends on the case by case basis.
Magonz (
talk) 14:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would avoid present tense in talking about denial by mainstream discourse, because if it is currently denied by mainstream discourse it can't go in that article. You could use present tense for denial by
fringe sources when those sources contradict mainstream discourse.
Larataguera (
talk) 16:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm talking about mainstream academic discourse. Popular opinion polls might actually contradict academic consensus, which is probably the case in many situations where historians have begun to talk about atrocities differently (labelling them genocide, etc), but K-12 education hasn't caught up yet, as Stanley points out (above). In this case, WP would side with academic consensus. Hope this helps. Larataguera ( talk) 16:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would avoid present tense in talking about denial by mainstream discourse, because if it is currently denied by mainstream discourse it can't go in that article. You could use present tense for denial by
fringe sources when those sources contradict mainstream discourse.
Larataguera (
talk) 16:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
|
Noticed your fight against one-sided colonists in the 'British Empire' section. I was curious to know why the page delves so little into the violence, dispossessive, capitalist history of the British empire but your contributions made it clear why. There is serios anglocentrism taking place in idk how many pages. Good on you for raising the question, and hopfully if more of us do it we can reveal the violence history of Britian and no longer glorify it.
With Aroha, From New Zealand - Jo Mackmack11306 ( talk) 13:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC) |
- @ Mackmack11306 Yes the bias is extraordinary. Imperialism is, by definition, a system that carries on injustice and atrocities, in any age, by the standards of any age, almost by definition, and the voices and POV of the other side are often ignored by encyclopedias.
- Check out this article:
- Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples
- The Australian government works very hard to disassociate itself from the atrocities done by non-state agents in Australian colonization, makes you wonder why...
- ~~~~
Magonz (
talk) 11:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Having skim read, what stands out to me is the amount of citations. This is an incredibly well cited article. Such is the internal colonizer in us that we feel like historical fact is contested territory. Nothing more clearly indicates bias than making an article impervious to contradiction by flooding it with citations. That simple fact is enough to show the bias of Wikipedia. Indigeneity is a struggle without end.
- Nga Mihi, Jo
Mackmack11306 (
talk) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ Mackmack11306 It seems that English Wikipedia , sometimes , goes beyond a language (English is for the lingua franca language, not England, right?), and has the bias of English POV, which is expected but that should not deter people with a more balanced, nuanced perspective from bringing in a diversity of voices that are significant. Magonz ( talk) 17:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples , it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. All sources cited in this page should actually discuss the stated topic. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 05:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I looked into it and I believe that I have addressed the issue by doing some editions... however if in your perspective there is more that may be a concern, please advise where in the article so I can look into it. I count +20 RS whose title says denial or the derivations of that word. These sources support the content of the article in various places.
Magonz (
talk) 11:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- While there are some cited sources that do discuss the article topic, others don't such as 5-8 and 11 in the current version of the article. Opinion pieces generally are poor sources for articles like this and you should be aware (although don't seem to be) that certain cited sources such as Ward Churchill are rather
WP:FRINGEy. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 15:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your condescending tone seems uncalled-for. For example>
- The following works have Ward Churchill in the bibliography:
- 1. Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes_ an encyclopedia, (2015) Mikaberidze, Alexander.
- 2. Blackhawk, Ned; Kiernan, Ben; Madley, Benjamin; Taylor, Rebe, eds. (2023). "Genocide in the Indigenous, Early Modern and Imperial Worlds, from c.1535 to World War One" The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 3. Bloxham D. & Moses A. D. (2010). The oxford handbook of genocide studies. Oxford University Press.
- 4. Jones A. (2023). Genocide a comprehensive introduction. ROUTLEDGE.
- 5. Shelton D. (2005). Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity. Macmillan Reference.
- Furthemore, an opinion piece, when used to show that a public figure has made a certain statement, as a historical fact, is valid. Not as a source of scholar analysis, I know. Magonz ( talk) 10:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- While there are some cited sources that do discuss the article topic, others don't such as 5-8 and 11 in the current version of the article. Opinion pieces generally are poor sources for articles like this and you should be aware (although don't seem to be) that certain cited sources such as Ward Churchill are rather
WP:FRINGEy. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 15:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Your addition to
Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples has been removed or altered, as it appears to
closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or
quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly
attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute
copyright violation or
plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for
legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. ( t · c) buidhe 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can you point to the specific incident you are referring to ? Magonz ( talk) 10:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Magonz: How goes it? I reviewed the article you wrote. Its an interesting bit of history and not something I've even thought about. I'm not from Australia but even occasionally in the uk you see it sometimes. In the "Government apologies to Indigenous peoples" section, there is a huge number of references per sentence. Are these the actual apologies themselves? If it is, it might worth creating a seperate list article and put them in with some dates and other salient information. It would be interesting to see when they are made and by who, for example and why even. Why do they apologize? If they are not, then you will need to try and reformat it somehow. Its well outside whats acceptable per the WP:MOS, and its a WP:CITEKILL violation. Maybe a further reading section, and move the bibliography section down, make it more standard shape. That would make a fat further reading section, so folk know exactly what is going on. Great article. Deep history. I hope that helps. scope_creep Talk 15:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Scope creep Thank you very much for the feedback. I will fix this as soon as possible. Magonz ( talk) 20:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Scope creep I believe I have addressed your concerns. Regards. Magonz ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Magonz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
- I request unblock for the following reasons:
- My area of interest is a highly controversial subject, that is genocide of indigenous peoples, which involves many nations and many territories throughout history up to the recent present.
- I have used two accounts to avoid attracting attention, that is for privacy concerns.
- I do not believe that I have practiced any or most of the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts, as I have strived to segregate the participation to separate topics for each account.
- I have brought balance, and new content from the point of view of indigenous peoples on a number of subjects, in a number of articles. This problem has been identified in articles such as this>
- https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-american-history-settler-colonialism.html
- My content is heavily referenced with RS supporting directly the topic at hand, and I have engaged in good faith with any scrutiny and editorial revisions.
- Magonz ( talk) 17:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say you were using two accounts for privacy reasons, but both the accounts made edits related to colonialism. 331dot ( talk) 08:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Magonz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public.
Magonz ( talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Ok, I understand now. What if I stop using one of the two accounts? I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public. [[User:Magonz|Magonz]] ([[User talk:Magonz#top|talk]]) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a
default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Ok, I understand now. What if I stop using one of the two accounts? I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public. [[User:Magonz|Magonz]] ([[User talk:Magonz#top|talk]]) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Ok, I understand now. What if I stop using one of the two accounts? I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public. [[User:Magonz|Magonz]] ([[User talk:Magonz#top|talk]]) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Deletion discussion about Historiography of Indigenous genocide
Hello Magonz, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Historiography of Indigenous genocide, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historiography of Indigenous genocide.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 01:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
North8000 I have given more than half a dozen reliable sources where the title is directly referencing the article's subject matter. To delete it would be to erase relevant and important information on the subject. You could instead write specific directions with detail on what needs to be worked on, for other editors to tackle, since I am in block status for now.
Magonz (
talk) 08:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I posted that I would like to withdraw the nomination. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Newslinger talk 09:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, see also entries are only usually added to articles directly relevant to the topic that can't be linked in the body, or occasionally in other circumstances, not the way you're adding them, often to broad concept articles; see the relevant guideline. I've undone most of your see also entry additions. See also sections are considered very bad style in some quarters; the average experienced Wikipedian rarely bothers with them (probably engaging with them in about one out of 200 edits at the very most) and you should do the same. Graham 87 03:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Graham I do not see anywhere specifically where I did not follow the guideline. Can you point to the specific part of the guideline that you claim I did not follow?
Magonz (
talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- See the paragraph that begins "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In my 16 years of editing Wikipedia I have never encountered an editor treating see also sections as you have, so the way you use them is therefore highly eccentric. They are indeed quite controversial here ... see most of
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 14, for example.
Graham
87 02:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your own source: "the linked topic is relevant to the one at hand. " Check. So you have not produced any evidence except your personal anecdotical experience with no source. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magonz (
talk •
contribs) 12:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. You don't get to cherry-pick bits of the guidelines to suit your cause. Also, a lot of the norms here aren't explicitly written down and never will be;
ignore all rules is a core policy for a reason.
Graham
87 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not cherry picking. You are saying that I am not following "the guidelines", and yet have not pointed to any specific part of a policy, and now attempt to say put the onus on me to justify my editions. You should back up your own claims.
Magonz (
talk) 13:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I gave you the relevant paragraph which I will now quote in full here: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and
common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be
relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one." Note that the second sentence contains "and", not "or"; all the conditions in it should be true, not just one. There's also this sentence further down: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."
Graham
87 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Which specific part of the paragraph are you claiming to back up your deletions?
Magonz (
talk) 13:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- All of it, especially the bit about common sense, which is the accumulated wisdom of many experienced Wikipedia editors. You are not an experienced Wikipedia editor (assuming this is your first username), as you've made under 300 edits in under six months, so the fact that you're the first person in Wikipedia's history to even think of doing such edits should tell you everything. This will be my last comment in this section. Graham 87 14:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Which specific part of the paragraph are you claiming to back up your deletions?
Magonz (
talk) 13:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I gave you the relevant paragraph which I will now quote in full here: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and
common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be
relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. A "See also" section is not mandatory—some high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have one." Note that the second sentence contains "and", not "or"; all the conditions in it should be true, not just one. There's also this sentence further down: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body."
Graham
87 13:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am not cherry picking. You are saying that I am not following "the guidelines", and yet have not pointed to any specific part of a policy, and now attempt to say put the onus on me to justify my editions. You should back up your own claims.
Magonz (
talk) 13:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. You don't get to cherry-pick bits of the guidelines to suit your cause. Also, a lot of the norms here aren't explicitly written down and never will be;
ignore all rules is a core policy for a reason.
Graham
87 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your own source: "the linked topic is relevant to the one at hand. " Check. So you have not produced any evidence except your personal anecdotical experience with no source. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magonz (
talk •
contribs) 12:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- See the paragraph that begins "Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." In my 16 years of editing Wikipedia I have never encountered an editor treating see also sections as you have, so the way you use them is therefore highly eccentric. They are indeed quite controversial here ... see most of
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout/Archive 14, for example.
Graham
87 02:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Translated List of films featuring colonialism to es:Anexo:Películas sobre colonialismo
- Translated List of films featuring slavery to es:Anexo:Películas sobre esclavitud
- Translated Exterminate All the Brutes (2021 film) to es:Exterminad a Todos los Salvajes
- Translated An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States to es:La historia popular indígena de Estados Unidos
- Created Western Supremacy (book)
- Created American Holocaust (book)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of films featuring colonialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genoese.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The utter contempt you have shown towards the advice of experienced Wikipedia editors in this section, as shown by your flippant accusation of trolling, along with continuing to make the edits you have been warned about, shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Therefore you have been blocked accordingly. If you want to make your own organisational system, start another website; you are not welcome here. Graham 87 11:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- To relate colonialism, imperialism, racism and white supremacy with one another, in articles that are directly related, is something that belongs in a broad introduction to the topic for all peoples that are seeking a general introduction to the field in an online encyclopedia. To be punished for this is plain lack of diversity in the historiography of universal history. This is not a Western encyclopeaedia for Western only point of views. Many experts in history have demonstrated the silencing of history that does not fit the mainstream Western historiography. Most people in the world, and therefore, most history in the world, is not Western. And to introduce readers to a view that is not only not accurate, but not representative is not correct. Can you address this points specifically before blocking me? I am willing to back up all these claims right here in my Talk Page with published reliable sources (university press, peer reviewed articles, renowned publishers' books, etc.). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magonz (
talk •
contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that you don't appear to realise that (a) you've already been blocked and (b) your attitude, not your opinion on see also links, is the ultimate reason makes me thoroughly disinclined to unblock you. Yes relationships between these topics are important to note in context, as they already are here, but adding see also linksthat go against or at least cause controversy regarding the relevant guideline isn't the way to do it. Graham 87 18:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe you were blocked for relating original appropriation to colonization! These links certainly "would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" as the guideline states, and this block looks to me like an abuse of admin powers, especially since it doesn't look like you were edit warring or attempting to reinstate the edits you made to this page after they were reverted. Including relevant links in stub articles is actually what see-also sections are for. I hope you'll continue to extend Wikipedia's coverage of the genocide of indigenous people. I'll try to remember and occasionally check your contribution page in case I can ever back you up on disputes such as this one. Larataguera ( talk) 16:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Larataguera Thanks, yes balance is important, and there is no connection between clearly related topics. Magonz ( talk) 03:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
"
|
| 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 |
"Western supremacy" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Western supremacy. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20#Western supremacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Sdrqaz (
talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Western Supremacy (book) (January 4)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Western Supremacy (book) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Western Supremacy (book), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
|
Hello, Magonz!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
RPSkokie (
talk) 05:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi Magonz. I notice that you do actually include two reviews for this book, so it should qualify as a notable article for the AFC. Maybe the reviewers didn't notice. I suggest making the review by Flavia Monceri more accessible by including an active URL and perhaps quoting from it in the reviews section. Likewise for the review by Chisti. These are the two reviews that should qualify the article for AFC. I'm concerned that the other reviews in the Media Reviews section won't be accepted because the page that sources those reviews sells the book. I suspect that there are more reviews of the French title, and I also suggest including some of these and quoting in translation to ensure that this article gets through the AFC process. For example, this review would be good. There are probably others in French. Thanks for writing this article on an important book! Feel free to let me know if you think I can help any more! Larataguera ( talk) 15:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Actually, I see now you have included a review from Le Monde in the lead. Not sure why I didn't see that before. I don't think you should have any trouble with the AFC now. Thanks again! Larataguera ( talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
-
Larataguera Thanks, I did the updates, but haven't heard back from the editors.
Magonz (
talk) 21:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Larataguera: Ping.
Magonz (
talk) 21:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think it looks good. I Hope my suggestions were helpful. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a backlog at AFC, but I hope they get around to this one soon. Thanks again! Larataguera ( talk) 02:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @
Larataguera: Ping.
Magonz (
talk) 21:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ RPSkokie: Hi, I have added the references from several journals and newspapers as recommended, please review, thank you. Magonz ( talk) 22:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Western Supremacy (book) has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
asilvering ( talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: American Holocaust (book) has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
RPSkokie ( talk) 14:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't confuse the fact that I engage with comments made about my edits. The ones that reverted my edits, are nowhere to be found yet... they said, "go to talk page to discuss", and they do not discuss. And now you are coming here to my talk page with a four word comment with no specifics.
Magonz (
talk) 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am asking you read something, if you reply to every comment on a talk page then that can be seen as wp:disruptive, I am asking you to be careful so as not to breach our guidelines. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- By hte way, as far as I can tell both users who reverted you have replied on the talk page.
Slatersteven (
talk) 12:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- One has made a claim that I have an "agenda", when all I am doing is improving articles. The other said that the view that the British Empire practiced genocide in some cases, is a fringe or minority view. Even commonwealth countries governments are issuing apologies as we speak. Seems like they have not kept up to date with the scholarly progress. Magonz ( talk) 13:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I listed three issues that they reverted, and they only pick one each, ignoring the other two.
Magonz (
talk) 13:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- You do understand that to gain consensus you have to address all of the issues people raise, to their satisfaction on the issues they have. They only have to reject one of your arguments, not all of them. Per
wp:brd and
WP:ONUS it is down to you to convince them. This is my last comment on this, I have asked you to read out policies, and to make sure you do not breach them, it is up to you if you choose to do so.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- So are you saying anyone can revert edits, and then the person who edited has to gain consensus from not only the one that reverted the edit, but gain consensus in general from an undetermined number of editors ? At what point is consensus official ? Who makes the call? Is the process with clear stated rules ?
Magonz (
talk) 13:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will respond as you have asked about how we act. Consensus is not a clear-cut thing. But (per
wp:consensus) "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", in other words, arguments must be policy-based, and must address all doubts. If consensus is clear (as in every user, or a vast majority of users) agree then an involved editor can close (see
WP:CLOSE). If it is less clear you can ask for a formal close here
WP:RFCL. Or you can seek
WP:DR. You can also escalate an a
wp:rfc which will attract more voices and eyes to a discussion.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus policy says that common sense shall be used, and clearly, the UK being WW2 winners and also English being the language of the English, you will find some resistance to adding a single criticism of imperialism in this article. But it suffices to see the official public apologies of the Australian, Canadian, USA, NZ governments about their colonial past to know that the record is indisputable. I don't have time either to convince people that the sun is hot, or water is wet. But will try again when I have time. Magonz ( talk) 17:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Here is a survey of apologies, of English colonial states that continue to exist from day 1 to today. Sheryl Lightfoot. (2015). Settler-State Apologies to Indigenous Peoples: A Normative Framework and Comparative Assessment. Native American and Indigenous Studies, 2(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.5749/natiindistudj.2.1.0015 Magonz ( talk) 17:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will respond as you have asked about how we act. Consensus is not a clear-cut thing. But (per
wp:consensus) "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", in other words, arguments must be policy-based, and must address all doubts. If consensus is clear (as in every user, or a vast majority of users) agree then an involved editor can close (see
WP:CLOSE). If it is less clear you can ask for a formal close here
WP:RFCL. Or you can seek
WP:DR. You can also escalate an a
wp:rfc which will attract more voices and eyes to a discussion.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- So are you saying anyone can revert edits, and then the person who edited has to gain consensus from not only the one that reverted the edit, but gain consensus in general from an undetermined number of editors ? At what point is consensus official ? Who makes the call? Is the process with clear stated rules ?
Magonz (
talk) 13:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- You do understand that to gain consensus you have to address all of the issues people raise, to their satisfaction on the issues they have. They only have to reject one of your arguments, not all of them. Per
wp:brd and
WP:ONUS it is down to you to convince them. This is my last comment on this, I have asked you to read out policies, and to make sure you do not breach them, it is up to you if you choose to do so.
Slatersteven (
talk) 13:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
You have not read wp:bludgeon have you? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello Magonz
I meant to post you a fuller explanation for removing your edit but got called away on something else. My apologies for this. The problem I had with your addition is that it doesn't really belong in this section which is about recent political activism against the doctrine. It is one statement by one historian and doesn't really add much to the section. I see that you've added some further information which looks more relevant. When I get the time I want to revise this whole section because it reads like a news section with information which is quickly outdated. WP:notnews. The information should be summarised and some statements made on the overall significance and impact of the movement. There are probably some reputable political and current affairs magazines which have provided overview articles. I would be happy to work with you on doing this. Aemilius Adolphin ( talk) 02:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Your edit to
The Dawning of the Apocalypse has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. The section in particular was minor, and could probably be paraphrased back in if you're careful. I would also advise double checking your sources to see if any of the rest of the article may have been unintentionally copied, in case I missed anything. Thank you!
ASUKITE 15:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I did not use anything as a source of content. I don't agree with this assessment. A synopsis of a book will be similar across authors, as they are all summarizing the same thing, the same book. Magonz ( talk) 15:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Denials of Atrocity Crimes Against Indigenous Nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mau Mau.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for all your work at Denial of atrocities against indigenous peoples! I just wanted to leave a note to be very careful about how you talk about "mainstream discourse". For example, in this edit, you offer an author's critique of "mainstream discourse". Remember that everyone here will insist that Wikipedia is mainstream discourse. So if you offer critiques of the mainstream, it will imply that the people making those critiques are not mainstream, so people will say they are fringe, and you will be accused of Righting Great Wrongs. That would all be very frustrating and unnecessary.
Critique of mainstream discourse is important of course, but in many cases Wikipedia doesn't represent mainstream discourse very well. For that article, there are many cases of atrocities against Indigenous peoples that are acknowledged by mainstream scholarship, yet continue to be denied by various governments or notable segments of the general (non-scholarly) population. So there's no need to critique "mainstream discourse" and raise this whole issue that will get you relegated to a "fringe" article. The effective argument will be to point toward mainstream scholarship, because there have been decades of decolonial and interdisciplinary studies examining these topics that are now pretty mainstream.
There are obviously issues with this approach, and Wikipedia's epistemology is fundamentally colonial and epistemicidal, but I don't think there's much to do about that on-platform. Thanks again for all you do! I hope this all makes sense and is helpful. Larataguera ( talk) 12:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify: more recent critique of older mainstream discourse which indicates that the mainstream consensus has changed would be valid and very useful. I think
Ostler's book is an example of this kind of documentation in changing scholarly consensus.
Larataguera (
talk) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- And this author writes in a book from 2022. I can only imagine the article of Holocaust denial written without Jewish authors, as Jewish people are a minority in most places where they live.
- If there is something I still do not understand feel free to elaborate.
Magonz (
talk) 16:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this author shouldn't be included. I'll need to review that source so that I better understand what she's saying about mainstream discourse, but we have to be very careful about how we include critiques of mainstream discourse, because other editors will throw out an entire article if they get the sense that something is
fringe. I'll get back to you after I review that source.
Larataguera (
talk) 17:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've reviewed that source (
full text), and I find that Stanley is critiquing the education system (in particular K-12 but also the university system). But the article itself is part of mainstream scholarship. It is published by
Routledge, which is about as mainstream as you can get. I think it's a great source, but I think you could use it more effectively. I don't actually find the statement you added that
mainstream scholarship treats Indigenous genocide broadly, without touching on the pattern of genocides against multiple distinct tribal nations
. Although this is certainly true. Maybe I missed it?The part I might use would be her statement thatResearch has overwhelmingly focused on how genocide denial in K-12 schools erases Indigenous Peoples from U.S. history
. With this statement, she tells us what research has "overwhelmingly focused on", so she is telling us the position of mainstream academia. So this is something that you could simply state in Wikivoice (in my opinion), because it appears to be the academic consensus (according to this author, who is a reliable source).She then goes on to talk about how this erasure dialogue is insufficient, and she advocates for more attention to how genocide denial perpetuates settler colonialism. Some of that is good stuff, and could also probably be included, but should be attributed (because she is not describing the academic consensus anymore, she is adding her own thoughts and trying to move the consensus toward a discussion of settler colonialism.This is how I interpret that paper. Sorry to be long-winded. I Hope this helps. Larataguera ( talk) 03:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)- Thanks for this. I had updated the statement to "She writes that Indigenous genocide is depicted broadly, without touching on the pattern of a series of separate genocides against multiple distinct tribal nations" to not invite unwarranted controversy. But your input is great, I can take it into consideration and bring back accordingly.
- David Stannard in a lecture regretted that he has named his milestone work "American Holocaust", in singular, because he should have named it American HolocaustS, as there were multiple genocides. This is a point that Stanley also makes. Magonz ( talk) 07:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've reviewed that source (
full text), and I find that Stanley is critiquing the education system (in particular K-12 but also the university system). But the article itself is part of mainstream scholarship. It is published by
Routledge, which is about as mainstream as you can get. I think it's a great source, but I think you could use it more effectively. I don't actually find the statement you added that
- I'm not saying this author shouldn't be included. I'll need to review that source so that I better understand what she's saying about mainstream discourse, but we have to be very careful about how we include critiques of mainstream discourse, because other editors will throw out an entire article if they get the sense that something is
fringe. I'll get back to you after I review that source.
Larataguera (
talk) 17:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Than you for this. Yes, agreed. I can add that this is perhaps the only Indigenous academic/scholar referenced in the whole article (even though technically Indigenous peoples can self-identify as such, a caveat is that the nation in question recognizes them as members. Member may have been forcefully assimilated via boarding schools, and only speak English, but they may have ties to their culture/heritage. And to say the least 90 out of 193 countries have people in them that self-identify as Indigenous), so their population for example is only 2% of US so, in that important country which she is referring to, she is certainly a minority, member of a minority that has been on the end of the atrocity issue. But she is Indigenous and the topic is Indigenous. I will look for more Indigenous scholars (for example see page 140 of that work) to see what their take is on the subject, as it is an important POV even though they are not well represented, at the table of academia/education ministries/museum boards/etc. even when the topic is about Indigenous subject matter.
Magonz (
talk) 16:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's true that Indigenous perspectives are under-represented in academia. It's also true that many Indigenous scholars have managed to penetrate academia over the years and integrate at least some of their POV into mainstream discourse (enough that non-Indigenous scholars are repeating some of their ideas). That process is slow. I think it's part of my job to ensure that those voices get due weight on Wikipedia, because they so often don't. Wikipedia is even slower to change than mainstream academic discourse, by design. Larataguera ( talk) 16:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I think you've improved that article a lot, and it seems much better organised now. There is still some language about mainstream discourse that you need to watch. For instance, Elazar Barkan claims that Indigenous genocide has not been given a place in the dominant version of history
. Barkan was writing 20 years ago, and perhaps this was true then, but it certainly isn't true now. So you need to clarify that this is someone documenting past denial. Because it reads in the present tense, which undermines the argument. That article has to be based on the premise that present mainstream discourse acknowledges atrocities against Indigenous people (which I believe it now does).
Larataguera (
talk) 12:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Ok I will try to fix throughout, will need time. How recent does the RS have to be to be able to use present tense? I suppose it depends on the case by case basis.
Magonz (
talk) 14:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would avoid present tense in talking about denial by mainstream discourse, because if it is currently denied by mainstream discourse it can't go in that article. You could use present tense for denial by
fringe sources when those sources contradict mainstream discourse.
Larataguera (
talk) 16:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm talking about mainstream academic discourse. Popular opinion polls might actually contradict academic consensus, which is probably the case in many situations where historians have begun to talk about atrocities differently (labelling them genocide, etc), but K-12 education hasn't caught up yet, as Stanley points out (above). In this case, WP would side with academic consensus. Hope this helps. Larataguera ( talk) 16:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would avoid present tense in talking about denial by mainstream discourse, because if it is currently denied by mainstream discourse it can't go in that article. You could use present tense for denial by
fringe sources when those sources contradict mainstream discourse.
Larataguera (
talk) 16:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
|
|
Noticed your fight against one-sided colonists in the 'British Empire' section. I was curious to know why the page delves so little into the violence, dispossessive, capitalist history of the British empire but your contributions made it clear why. There is serios anglocentrism taking place in idk how many pages. Good on you for raising the question, and hopfully if more of us do it we can reveal the violence history of Britian and no longer glorify it.
With Aroha, From New Zealand - Jo Mackmack11306 ( talk) 13:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC) |
- @ Mackmack11306 Yes the bias is extraordinary. Imperialism is, by definition, a system that carries on injustice and atrocities, in any age, by the standards of any age, almost by definition, and the voices and POV of the other side are often ignored by encyclopedias.
- Check out this article:
- Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples
- The Australian government works very hard to disassociate itself from the atrocities done by non-state agents in Australian colonization, makes you wonder why...
- ~~~~
Magonz (
talk) 11:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Having skim read, what stands out to me is the amount of citations. This is an incredibly well cited article. Such is the internal colonizer in us that we feel like historical fact is contested territory. Nothing more clearly indicates bias than making an article impervious to contradiction by flooding it with citations. That simple fact is enough to show the bias of Wikipedia. Indigeneity is a struggle without end.
- Nga Mihi, Jo
Mackmack11306 (
talk) 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ Mackmack11306 It seems that English Wikipedia , sometimes , goes beyond a language (English is for the lingua franca language, not England, right?), and has the bias of English POV, which is expected but that should not deter people with a more balanced, nuanced perspective from bringing in a diversity of voices that are significant. Magonz ( talk) 17:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate
your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to
Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples , it appears that you have added
original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses
combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the
tutorial on citing sources. All sources cited in this page should actually discuss the stated topic. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 05:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I looked into it and I believe that I have addressed the issue by doing some editions... however if in your perspective there is more that may be a concern, please advise where in the article so I can look into it. I count +20 RS whose title says denial or the derivations of that word. These sources support the content of the article in various places.
Magonz (
talk) 11:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- While there are some cited sources that do discuss the article topic, others don't such as 5-8 and 11 in the current version of the article. Opinion pieces generally are poor sources for articles like this and you should be aware (although don't seem to be) that certain cited sources such as Ward Churchill are rather
WP:FRINGEy. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 15:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your condescending tone seems uncalled-for. For example>
- The following works have Ward Churchill in the bibliography:
- 1. Atrocities, massacres, and war crimes_ an encyclopedia, (2015) Mikaberidze, Alexander.
- 2. Blackhawk, Ned; Kiernan, Ben; Madley, Benjamin; Taylor, Rebe, eds. (2023). "Genocide in the Indigenous, Early Modern and Imperial Worlds, from c.1535 to World War One" The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- 3. Bloxham D. & Moses A. D. (2010). The oxford handbook of genocide studies. Oxford University Press.
- 4. Jones A. (2023). Genocide a comprehensive introduction. ROUTLEDGE.
- 5. Shelton D. (2005). Encyclopedia of genocide and crimes against humanity. Macmillan Reference.
- Furthemore, an opinion piece, when used to show that a public figure has made a certain statement, as a historical fact, is valid. Not as a source of scholar analysis, I know. Magonz ( talk) 10:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- While there are some cited sources that do discuss the article topic, others don't such as 5-8 and 11 in the current version of the article. Opinion pieces generally are poor sources for articles like this and you should be aware (although don't seem to be) that certain cited sources such as Ward Churchill are rather
WP:FRINGEy. (
t ·
c)
buidhe 15:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Your addition to
Denial of atrocities against Indigenous peoples has been removed or altered, as it appears to
closely paraphrase a copyrighted source. Limited close paraphrasing or
quotation is appropriate within reason, so long as the material is clearly
attributed in the text. However, longer paraphrases which are not attributed to their source may constitute
copyright violation or
plagiarism, and are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Such content cannot be hosted here for
legal reasons; please do not post it on any page, even if you plan to fix it later. You may use external websites or printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If you own the copyright to the text, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the copyright but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. ( t · c) buidhe 15:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can you point to the specific incident you are referring to ? Magonz ( talk) 10:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Magonz: How goes it? I reviewed the article you wrote. Its an interesting bit of history and not something I've even thought about. I'm not from Australia but even occasionally in the uk you see it sometimes. In the "Government apologies to Indigenous peoples" section, there is a huge number of references per sentence. Are these the actual apologies themselves? If it is, it might worth creating a seperate list article and put them in with some dates and other salient information. It would be interesting to see when they are made and by who, for example and why even. Why do they apologize? If they are not, then you will need to try and reformat it somehow. Its well outside whats acceptable per the WP:MOS, and its a WP:CITEKILL violation. Maybe a further reading section, and move the bibliography section down, make it more standard shape. That would make a fat further reading section, so folk know exactly what is going on. Great article. Deep history. I hope that helps. scope_creep Talk 15:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Scope creep Thank you very much for the feedback. I will fix this as soon as possible. Magonz ( talk) 20:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Scope creep I believe I have addressed your concerns. Regards. Magonz ( talk) 19:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Magonz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
- I request unblock for the following reasons:
- My area of interest is a highly controversial subject, that is genocide of indigenous peoples, which involves many nations and many territories throughout history up to the recent present.
- I have used two accounts to avoid attracting attention, that is for privacy concerns.
- I do not believe that I have practiced any or most of the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts, as I have strived to segregate the participation to separate topics for each account.
- I have brought balance, and new content from the point of view of indigenous peoples on a number of subjects, in a number of articles. This problem has been identified in articles such as this>
- https://slate.com/technology/2023/02/wikipedia-native-american-history-settler-colonialism.html
- My content is heavily referenced with RS supporting directly the topic at hand, and I have engaged in good faith with any scrutiny and editorial revisions.
- Magonz ( talk) 17:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say you were using two accounts for privacy reasons, but both the accounts made edits related to colonialism. 331dot ( talk) 08:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Magonz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public.
Magonz ( talk) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Ok, I understand now. What if I stop using one of the two accounts? I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public. [[User:Magonz|Magonz]] ([[User talk:Magonz#top|talk]]) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a
default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Ok, I understand now. What if I stop using one of the two accounts? I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public. [[User:Magonz|Magonz]] ([[User talk:Magonz#top|talk]]) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Ok, I understand now. What if I stop using one of the two accounts? I had concerns about my privacy, as I add controversial subject matter, and who knows what extremists lurk in the internet that are triggered by the content. Now, this process has exposed my identity as the two accounts as one. Moving forwards, this point is now without merit. So I propose to use only one of the accounts, say DTMGO. Meanwhile, I am trying to learn how Wikipedia protects the privacy of those users who add controversial subject matter, that is important and interesting to the general public. [[User:Magonz|Magonz]] ([[User talk:Magonz#top|talk]]) 10:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Deletion discussion about Historiography of Indigenous genocide
Hello Magonz, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Historiography of Indigenous genocide, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historiography of Indigenous genocide.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 ( talk) 01:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
North8000 I have given more than half a dozen reliable sources where the title is directly referencing the article's subject matter. To delete it would be to erase relevant and important information on the subject. You could instead write specific directions with detail on what needs to be worked on, for other editors to tackle, since I am in block status for now.
Magonz (
talk) 08:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I posted that I would like to withdraw the nomination. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)