User talk:Karl Krafft

Invitation to ProleWiki

Hello, comrade. The administrators at ProleWiki came across your user profile and wanted to formalize an invitation to participate in the work with us. We want to develop ProleWiki on the principles of democratic centralism and Marxism-Leninism. If you are interested in the project, please, feel free to create an account there and contact us! --Felipe Forte ^{(have fun!)} 01:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Karl Krafft, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Karl Krafft! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't convert book - page references

Khmer Rouge - reference 20 - becker has at least 20 associated individual page refs The ref is to the book - the template - - book reference page 100 Dave-okanagan (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for Dengism edit

Thank you for adding a source to the name "Dengism" on the Deng Xiaoping Theory article; it's very clearly a common unofficial name, but people have been removing it randomly for over a year. Hopefully a source will put a stop to that. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I was surprised that "Dengism" wasn't in the first sentence as an alternative name, so I took the time to find some sources to add it. Karl Krafft (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Levada Center survey

Is the survey for which you have just added details the same as the 2021 survey by Levada detailed two paragraphs above? If so the two need to be merged. Sbishop (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it appears to be the same but I didn't notice it. Thanks for telling me, I fixed it. Karl Krafft (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

2022 Kazhak Protests Article

Why are you deleting the two other parties all the time? Reasoning of you is "not reliable sources", but for example for the Democratic Choice of Kazhakstan, my sources were from the official site of the party, and it's *linked* official channels. This is not in conflict with Wikipedia source policy and specified.

I ask you friendly to stop this - I deem this a COI because of your political views. My sources are trustworthy. If you don't believe me, check the sources yourself, if you are even able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerbrxsler (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zerbrxsler: Telegram is generally regarded as unreliable per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, same with YouTube and WP:RSPYT. These sources cannot stand on their own. Do Kazakh media confirm that these parties are organizing the protests? Karl Krafft (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Organization? Why organization? They are participating and calling for protest, that is enough. Did you check their official site already? It's official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerbrxsler (talk • contribs) 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

They remain self-published sources. Wait until news from Kazakh or other media comes out. Karl Krafft (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Specifically,...

Would you be more specific on which particular sentence(s) you are referring as "POV language" in Special:diff/1069275118/1069331608? -- love.wh 07:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm specifically referring to the "eliminated Mao's rivals", "violent sociopolitical movement and chaos" and the "for his failures in the Great Leap Forward" (instead of the original "being held responsible for the failures in the Great Leap Forward") sentences. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't write "eliminated Mao's rivals" myself - it was taken from "In order to eliminate his rivals within the CCP and in schools, factories, and government institutions, Mao charged that bourgeois elements had infiltrated...", which appeared in both the version immediate before my edit and the version you restored to. I have no opinion on that.

I agree that the original phrasing "being held responsible for the failures in the Great Leap Forward" is better.

Regarding "violent sociopolitical movement and chaos", as Lu (2004) pointed out, the revolution itself is "known to the Chinese as the ten years of chaos”. Plenty of English sources described the revolution as chaos / ten years of chaos, too. The denunciation rallies and violent struggles are by definition violent. Why do you find "violent" or "chaos" NPOV?

Are you satisfied that I reinstate the remaining changes in Special:diff/1069275118/1069331608 apart from the three bits you pointed out?

-- love.wh 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree having the word "violence" or "chaos" per se, but I disagree with their placement and the way they were used, since the Cultural Revolution itself wasn't a "chaos". It was a sociopolitical movement, which wasn't entirely violent and the violent struggles were only a part of it. However, I wouldn't object to a sentence stating The Cultural Revolution was characterized by violence and chaos further below. I don't believe that it's appropriate for the first sentence though. I'll make the edit with the sources you showed me and if you like it we can keep it. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

done. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

1) You had a point regarding the placement on MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Gladly taken. 2) I think it is important to state whether this sociopolitical movement was a success or failure (alternatively, whether the stated goal and the implicit intentions were achieved) somewhere in the lead. It seems most sources said it failed. I am not sure how the wording should be. Any suggestions? 3) I just rephrased some of the paragraphs in the lead. Happy to discuss further if you have an opinion on that. -- love.wh 06:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree with your edits except for the one where you changed the death toll numbers. Specifically because the body of the article has a variety of different estimates (ranging from 250.000 to 20 million). As per MOS:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The 1.1 to 7 million figures in the lead are more precise but also inconsistent.

Finally, I suggest adding the phrase "which was not achieved" after the sentence which states the Revolution's goal. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, i added "it failed to achieve its main goals" instead [1]. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite dissatisfied with how death toll estimates are summarized in many Wikipedia articles. The current way gives WP:undue weight on the extremes, so whoever came up a even lower/ even higher figure would definitely get mentioned in the lead. The current way also relies on we wikipedians, rather than scholars, to keep an eye of the ever-updating new extreme figures. A better way would be to cite a range which most literature reviews consider verifiable and reasonable. It has three advantages. First, while a research paper might try to advocate for a specific death toll, a literature review tend to give a neutral overview of what the consensus said about the death toll. Second, the responsibility of keeping an eye of the newest death toll estimates lies on the scholars, rather than we wikipedians. Thirdly, the verifiable and reasonable would likely exclude extremes. If the reason why you put "250,000 to 20 million" in the lead is because you as a wikipedian saw those two numbers in the death toll section, that's not a good way to go. Let's scholars give us the range.

Besides, the 20 million figure rarely got mentioned in any literature review of death toll, rather, it usually appear as an anecdote of the private conversation of the communist leaders, so that figure has no place in the WP:lead. 1.1 million is a verifiable minimum number of deaths got endorsed by this literature review at least, and I paraphrased:

Andrew G. Walder (2014) reviewed the death figures recorded in 2,213 county annals. He came up with a statistical model and concluded the deaths could not be possibly any lower than 1.1~1.6 million, while the persecuted could not be possibly any lower than 22~30 million. Yan Fei applauded Walder's extreme cautious and conservative methodology of estimate, as Waldner counted "a couple died" or "some of them died", common unquantifiable wordings in annals, as 0 deaths, he counted "several tens of people died" as "ten", "several hundreds" as a hundred, ... hence Waldner's model is a verifiable minimum number of deaths. -- Reviewed by Yan, Fei (2016). "政治運動中的集體暴力：「非正常死亡」再回顧" (PDF). 二十一世紀. 155: 64-65, 74.

-- love.wh 17:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I partially agree on undue weight because the margin of error is very wide. I believe that we should make the death toll in the lead look like the Holodomor article, i.e: Current scholarship estimates a range of 4 to 7 million victims,[15] with more precise estimates ranging from 3.3[16] to 5 million.[17] Which means that we should also add more precise estimates to avoid undue margin of error. I instead propose 400,000 for the lowest number (the source for the claim has 254 citations [2]), but I agree with your 7.7 million proposal for the highest number.

It would look something like this: Scholarly estimates vary, with a wide range of 250,000 to 20 million deaths cause during the ten years of the Cultural Revolution. More precise estimates range from 400,000 to 7,7 million.[17] 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The way Holodomor handle the range is elegant, "Current scholarship estimates a range of...". I would like to point out figures in the scale of 200,000~400,000 in the Cultural Revolution is a pre-1979 estimate and do not come from current scholarship. As Maurice Meisner (1999)'s Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic (3rd ed.) p. 354 put it, "400,000 Cultural Revolution deaths, a number first reported in 1979 by the Agence France Presse correspondent in Beijing based on estimates of unofficial but “usually reliable” Chinese sources". Reliable counts of deaths has to come from local statistics, i.e. county annals, and they were published around mid-1990s. I would say estimates produced before mid-1990s, even if they are still quoted now, is grossly unreliable and has no place in the lead.-- love.wh 04:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the 400,000 number is still in use today. Here's a 2021 publication from Oxford University Press. I don't know how the number is analyzed though. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is better to give some context to the readers on how every author arrived its estimates of death tolls. I checked out every source and overhauled it. This should be a good start, though far from perfect.-- love.wh 19:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's adequate for now. 😺Karl😺Krafft😺 (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Note

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Five Races Under One Union page vandalism. Thank you.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)