User talk:Rsk6400

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Eastern Europe or the Balkans pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rsk6400. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. You need a better one, which must exist. (Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl) deisenbe (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I deleted a lot of stuff some other user had taken from there. I left the reference, but I didn't create the reference. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to thank you again and make a quick suggestion about bibliography and reference short citations rather than entering the whole title each time. The footnote is linked directly to the entry in the References section, and it produces correct form with no fuss. There is certainly no requirement to use it, however.

There are several ways to cite described in WP:CITESHORT or the main article Help: Shortened Footnotes.

You can see the system in many (but not all) notes in Hinduism or Franz Kafka.

Here are some examples.

For instance, in the Reference section the book is listed

• {{cite|last= Blight |first= David W. |title= Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom |place= New York |publisher= Simon & Schuster |year= 2018|ref=harv}},

which produces

• Blight, David W. (2018), Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom, New York: Simon & Schuster {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

A journal article is listed

• {{cite|first = Adam |last= Gopnik|authorlink = Adam Gopnik|title = American Prophet: The gifts of Frederick Douglass |journal = The New Yorker |url= https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/15/the-prophetic-pragmatism-of-frederick-douglass|date = 15 October 2018| pages = 76–82| ref= harv}}

This would produce:

• Gopnik, Adam (15 October 2018), "American Prophet: The gifts of Frederick Douglass", The New Yorker: 76–82 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Then to make a footnote reference, in the text insert

• {{sfnb|Blight|2018| p = 10}} or {{sfnb|Gopnik|2018| p = 76}}

which would produce

• ^[1] and ^[2]

The reference section would then be as follows, where you could click the link to get to the full listing (here the listing is above, but obviously in a real article it would be in the Readings section):

Cheers in any case! ch (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! I will keep it in mind as I continue with my project. Let me know if you have any more as I go along! Sarahadkins001 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Sarahadkins001[reply]

It's normally best to not close at the wire; generally discussions are left out for a bit longer and are not closed by the nominator. Just noting practice here. — J947 ^[cont] 23:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of violating any rules, and so I read the rules given at the top of the page a hundred times before closing the discussion, and I'm pretty sure that I didn't violate any. If there are more rules, I think the top of the page is badly worded ("The discussion is open to the following rules" in my understanding means, "there are no other rules except what your mother told you about common sense, civilty and legal stuff"). Rsk6400 (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that the rules aren't followed to the wire generally and that it's best to familarise yourself to VA as a whole before delving in closing discussions. — J947 ^[cont] 05:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "delving in closing discussions" is the right expression for what I did. I closed two discussions a short while after the minimum time had elapsed. But both discussions had been inactive for 7 or more days before I closed them. While in other cases a rule that the nominator should not close is explicitly given on the header of the discussion page, this is not so on VA. Having public rules AND secret rules is very confusing and maybe it is also a cause why there is so little activity at VA/level 5. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically – the VA5 rules are temporary and the rules overall are outdated. If we have someone closing on the wire then it's harder to make important changes to the voting system, like complying with consensus, a fundamental guideline of the website. Just letting you know. — J947 ^[cont] 20:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm really confused. At the beginning, I thought you were criticizing my action. Now I think, you are criticizing the rules (I understand you see a conflict between such rules as the 55% rule and the principle of consensus). But for some reason which I really don't understand, you are criticizing also me. I understood your term "close at the wire" to mean "just a few hours after the minimum time had elapsed". Was my understanding wrong (I'm German, not a native speaker of English) ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on the term close at the wire. I'm not meaning to criticise you, rather to just give you a note. — J947 ^[cont] 20:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user: Rsk6400 ! Why do you call the map outdated? The Caucasian , Mongoloid, Negroid and Australoid groups of races exist accoriding to the genetic distances of various ethnic groups based on autosomal genetic researches.--Liltender (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at Talk:Negroid#Map_from_the_Horniman_museum_is_correct Rsk6400 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These will be your favourit article , you will like even its name. I suggest to read this article RACE AND GENETICS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liltender (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And of course not relevant to his claim, doesn't mention his 4 "races". Doug Weller talk 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the paragraph that I had included in the "etymology" section and added Diop's book only as a reference, which enriches the article, without making it redundant.

Dealmeida87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to add that the researcher referred to in the "etymology" section is Goldenberg, who disagrees with Ham's translation as "black, burnt or hot", while Diop defends this translation as correct, which brings a different perspective to the issue, further distancing it redundancy.

Dealmeida87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the problem was not "redundancy", it was with the opinion of a black researcher on the subject, which you don't like. And you say you have an aversion to all forms of racism ... I don't even want to imagine what your posture would be if you were not averse to racism.

Dealmeida87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dealmeida87: I gave my reasons at Talk:Ham_(son_of_Noah)#Etymology. "Assume good faith" is one of Wikipedia's mottos. If you want to assume bad faith, you are free to do so, but it has a tendency to make communication more complicated. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk page. And mine (look at the history, not the page directly). Doug Weller talk 17:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - NPOV language, the Nature sources doesn't seem to mention mongoloid, the original source saying he was mongoloid isn't there and I think is from the 60s. Doug Weller talk 09:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I got you right. He doesn't claim the Nature source (you used plural ?) to talk about race. Nature mentions the genes like HERC2 which are connected to eye colour, but infering from it that the boy had blue eyes is what I understand to be OR (no person who is not a trained genetics expert can do that inference from the article, at least I can't).

The Japan Review article is based on the theory that a Mongoloid race really exists, so not "helpful" is correct. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the IP a 3RR warning, if they revert again, leave it, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm curious. I have read through your various discussion threads and looked over your page, and I am wondering what this interest in race and racism is predicated upon. I notice you seem to see many things through this lens and I find it a bit disturbing that you insist so vehemently on characterizing other people, namely the subject, or their work as racist or, colonialist, or any number of pejoratives and epithets. If I knew you, I might say that you betray yourself. I really hope you will reconsider this posture. It is time to stop calling people and things racist. The only person who can declare someone or something a racist is that person himself -- and perhaps God. If they don't say "I'm a racist and so is my work," editors should not and cannot determine that for them. Perhaps you can pray on it. Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WirmerFlagge (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the page Race and Intelligence, and these two recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12#Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination)? –Austronesier (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not familiar with it, but I just took a short look at it. Flooding an article or a discussion has two effects: It gives the superficial reader the impression that a meaningful discussion is going on and it drives away well-intentioned editors. I'm currently trying to get some nonsense out of Mongoloid and Negroid, but I'm not sure if I'll have the nerves (time, energy) to touch Caucasoid. The corresponding articles at simple.wikipedia.org are full of Coon-stuff. Well, I try to keep calm and be civil when discussing with those people and to block the thought from my mind that some people can't breathe. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions around Race and Intelligence are accompanied by off-wiki canvassing in ultra-right fora, which makes things even worse. The dynamics were obvious with the delete discussion. Initially, regulars like me came in who were notified via intra-WP channels (including a post in the WikiProject Ethnic groups), and most voted for delete or at least massive cleanup of the pseudo-balanced presentation of the topic. After a few days, IPs and single-purpose accounts flooded in, to defend "unbiased and uncensored science", and equipped with sophism and quite high rhetoric skills.

Anyway, keep up the spirit, it is worth it. I'll try to contribute there too, with my limited knowledge of sources in those topics. –Austronesier (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James343e (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another one (not a problematic page, but a problematic sock)[edit]

FYI[2], the do-it-yourself geneticist is not new here... –Austronesier (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My dumb, I've just seen your post. Facepalm –Austronesier (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your reversion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japhetites&oldid=prev&diff=957965127, "while it is logical to place Irish with Celts, we don't know whether Isidore and Jerome followed that logic," isn't it a problem that there's no reference for any of the descriptions attributed to Isadore and Jerome?Jastighe (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jastighe: You are right, I just added "Citation needed". --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: Thanks. I should have done that in the first place—missed the forest for the trees. Jastighe (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In light of us disagreeing about what to with Jacobs, I've started an RfC on the general practice of nationality vs ethnicity labeling the lead of biographies which you might want to participate in here: RfC on mentioning race or ethnicity in place of nationality in the first sentence of a Biography. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

looking at Talk:Sinodonty_and_Sundadonty#Mongoloid_dental_complex, I'm feeling this is not easy to "see" at a project level. Though the issue of scientific racism on this project is not as major an issue as some of the other Wikipedias we have examined, I'm thinking that this is at least worth a tracking category, or perhaps a tracking template. At least then one could see a backlog of issues, and the harder process of re-writing and re-sourcing is something that can be gradually improved with collegiate working, rather than a couple of individuals that are likely to gain increasing resistance if seen as lobbying or being politically correct with attempting to remove words that can be found in academic sources up until the end of the 20th century. Whatever might work here, should be easier to justify attempting or recommending for other projects.

Any thoughts? --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Excellent idea. I'd like to increase the visibility of the problem, so a tracking category like "Category:Articles with problems related to scientific racism" might not be the best solution. Could Template:Fringe_theories be used as a model for a new template "Template:Scientific_racism" ? A text might be something like "This article may contain content promoting Scientific racism, without giving appropriate weight to the scientific consensus on race issues. ..." I don't have enough experience to create such a template myself, and I'm not sure whether that could serve as the "tracking template" you suggested.

BTW: The AAPA declaration of 2019 which you brought to my attention has been very useful in many articles. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since raising, a couple of us interested in Wikimedia project SR issues in different languages who happen to be chatting in a user group zoom conference, have set up a Telegram group. Email me if you would like to join, though not expecting it to be a lively group apart from raising specific cases, so it may peter out.

A long time ago, before the multilanguage extensions to templates, I did a lot of template work both at en.wp and Commons, then even on meta. I'm very rusty but will look at the current policies to set something up. As it would not be a WikiProject, it could still fit within the scope of article talk page header templates. These may be justified on any talk page where there's an improvement discussion directly relevant, and could be used for both tracking categories and tracking reporting. Potentially it may relate to Arbcom categories, so if it looks appropriate I may quietly drop them an email.

I'll continue to be very slow on this as I'm trying to stay persistent by chipping away without burning out on it. Hearing about experiences in other languages, there's some extremely terrible projects that actively promote hatred against tribes/races and promote race myths, which have been complained about for a decade without the WMF ever stepping in, and with the support of local admins. As one may expect the problem is systemic, and one that the WMF does not want to act on directly, but could potentially be used to support some "official" research or analysis by an academically credible party. I also still have my Commons content projects which will take up most of my volunteer energy, which is a good thing, as SR could be a pretty gloomy rabbit-hole to fall down. --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Somehow I knew this was going to happen. I can see that you've reverted by edit to the Racism article. I was actually trying to be really careful about what I did. I was troubled by the sentence that I moved/edited, because it seemed to give excessive prominance from one source by one writer in the introdcutory section. In fact, the sentence was almost exactly copied from the source. I could also see that the reference included the quote. What troubled me was that a casual reader wouldn't sense how the phrase "Racism is a relatively modern concept" is being said in the social science meaning, but rather than as a thing throughout human history. Then reading down the article to the Etymology section, I saw that a sentance about the usage of the term in modern times seemed a better place for this reference. (In passing, I also thought the introduction section was too long; I still do.) That's why I moved it, along with deleting that sentence. I almost deleted the quote in the reference as well, but I left it so people can read that if they want (so that description was still on the page). I thought about all of the above that quite hard and was very mindful of what I was trying to acheive. But deep down I had this sense that my edit would get reverted, probably due to the article subject matter. And indeed 18 minutes later, you reverted it. I've edited Wikipedia for many years and have the required level to edit this article, so I was praying that other editors would take my edit on good faith and maybe ask me about it first. I've grown a thick skin about this over time, but I just want to say that this type of reversion approach is the type of thing that puts newbie users off from editing Wikipedia. Why am I writing all this? I don't know. All the best. Seaweed (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Seaweed: thank you for explaining. That was really helpful because I was a bit confused. Just yesterday I had declined an edit request on the article's talk page which wanted the very same sentence deleted. Reacting to that request, I looked at the source and copied more text from the source. Then I saw your edit, together with a summary which didn't mention the deletion of that sentence.

You are right in saying that the prominence of one source is a bit problematic. But on the other hand, I believe that the text is correct, and that even the understanding of a casual reader is correct: Racism in the sense that haunts the West since Columbus's days is different from older concepts. The Greeks, the Romans, the Europeans of the Middle Ages had ethnocentric schemes of "Us" against "Them", but as far as I know they had neither a division of humankind into a relatively small number (something between three and ten) of "races", but they listed all the peoples or tribes (or in case of the Middle Ages, religions) they knew. They had a notion of enemy peoples but no notion of inferior or superior peoples. The Spanish 16th century discussions on whether Africans or Americans were real human beings have no parallel in the preceding centuries. And I think it is important to remember that racism is not just something that comes with our human nature, but that is was incited by economical interests. At least this is what I remember having read in Ibram X. Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hi Rsk6400! I have seen your last edit[3] in Caucasian race, which made me curious about what the sources actually are telling us about, beyond from serving as "proof" that "some anthropologists" assumedly still use term "race". I noticed that some of the sources actually quite critically discuss the fact that some forensic anthropologists at least until 2010 still clinged to race-based terminology, quite unlike in general physical anthropology, where racial categorizations have long fallen out of use. Out-of-context quotes makes these sources appear dubious, although they aren't. In a way, these sources have been misused to prove a point (which won't come as a surprise to you I'm sure). A good example is this one:

• Sue Black; Eilidh Ferguson (19 April 2016). Forensic Anthropology: 2000 to 2010. CRC Press. pp. 126–127. ISBN 978-1-4398-4589-9. Semantically speaking, the term race appears to pertain to the individual and has largely been succeeded in physical anthropology by the more impersonal term ancestry. The distinction between these terms is considered to be important. Race may be regarded as a "socially constructed mechanism for self identification and group membership" and so biologically meaningless, whereas ancestry is a "scientifically derived descriptor of the biological component of population variation" (Konigsberg et al. 2009: 77–78). So, why do the rather politically sensitive terms Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid still appear in published literature (Ousley et al. 2009)? There are considered to be four basic ancestry groups into which an individual can be placed by physical appearance, not accounting for admixture: the sub-Saharan African group ("Negroid"), the European group ("Caucasoid"), the Central Asian group ("Mongoloid"), and the Australasian group ("Australoid"). The rather outdated names of all but one of these groups were originally derived from geography: The Caucasoid group traversed the Caucasus Mountains as they spread into Europe and eastern Asia. Since the majority of native peoples from the Indian subcontinent, northern and northeastern Africa and the Near East fall into this group, to say that the group is of "European" ancestry does not really suffice. Plus, the terms Caucasoid or Caucasian do not have the same oppressive, persecutory connotations as the other terms and so are less likely to cause offense.

The paper is fully visible in Google Books (at least for me), and it essentially says that race categories are not only untenable from a biological viewpoint, but also of no practical value in forensics. So some of these sources are actually very valuable for the history of race concepts (including their rejection in every field of science), and may be reused in this context (maybe in Scientific racism?). –Austronesier (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thanks a lot. I had been looking for such a source for some time, because all other critical sources on the use of "Negroid" and the like in forensics which I knew of are about a decade older. Since those terms disappeared from anthropological textbooks during the 1990s (as far as I know), to me it seems quite likely that they survived in forensics some ten years longer. I came upon the claim that those terms are still in use in various articles (e.g. Mongoloid) in various languages - repetition is the way some editors make their wishful thinking appear quite credible. I sometimes wish I'd have time to do some creative editing, but instead I find myself deleting racist nonsense most of the time. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your report of the IP is botched somehow[4]. –Austronesier (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thank you. I saw it, but was lacking time and motivation to look into it, hoping in vain they'd stop. Now it's there, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:94.54.255.43_reported_by_User:Rsk6400_(Result:_). BTW: I liked the word "thrice" you used in one of your edit summaries - the only other person to use that word that I know of was Tolkien ;-) --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I use it almost as frequently as hitherto :) –Austronesier (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk6400! It looks like Roberto Sandrocko has stolen your name. Strangely enough, that account pretty much displays (or imitates?) the typical behavior of a very notorious long-term abuse sockmaster. I'll get in touch per mail with Doug Weller to look into it. –Austronesier (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thanks for the information and for getting in touch with Doug Weller. Indeed, very strange. I don't know anything about him (presuming Roberto to be a male name). --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 15:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: It is indeed a sock of WorldCreaterFighter. Finally confirmed and blocked: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive#26_December_2021. Und ich wünsche Dir, auch wenns ein wenig spät kommt, ein gesegnetes Weihnachtsfest! –Austronesier (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thanks for the information. That also sheds a new light on who the IP editor from Vienna might have been who pointed me to Xiongnu. Danke für die Weihnachtswünsche und Dir ein gutes Neues Jahr 2022 (man darf ja träumen: ein Jahr ohne Vandalen, Rassisten und Viren ! - dreaming of a year with no vandals, no racists, and no viruses). --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RSK6400, please take a look at Ancient North Eurasians. The user Barracuda is again vandalizing. The specific picture is WP:OR and WP:Synth. It seems he has a kind of nationalist feelings towards ANE and Europeans. - 81.10.217.91 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the whole article and the ANE concept is used by white nationalist and racialist to claim dominance in Eurasia. After Barracudas clearly biased editing (Account on Mission), as he nearly exclusively edits this article, he may be linked to these kind of group. See ^[1] - 81.10.217.91 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I consider that curious WP users are best served by offering them a maximum of concise info on all related topics. A "see also" item can lead to the user doing further research, and to editors expanding the article itself. If a "see also" item is both related to the topic and supported by facts, I see its removal as counterproductive and going against the raison d'être of WP. Personally, I also believe it to be less than a recommendation for the editor who does it, as an additional "see also" item has no noticeable downside, unless there are too many of them and become a burden; removing one for strictly subjective reasons, also without going to the talk-page, looks like a whim, and that's neither smart, nor civil, nor helpful for the WP project. In this case, the topic is more than well-documented, even if not so much yet on English WP. I actually don't have the time to expand on it myself, but I see myself forced to do it because I don't want to get into silly edit wars with you. I'm less than happy about it. You're relatively new on WP, so please, when you do controversial moves like removing somebody else's edits without very good and objective reasons, do think beyond the first urge, because this does have repercussions in the real world, it's not something abstract. Have a nice day, Arminden (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry, you're not new. I took the belated welcome cookie from October 2019 to mean that you're fresh in this field. All the more so, I'm sure now that you know what I'm talking about. My reflex, when I'm seeing something similar, is to dig further, i.e. to do some research, educate myself, and if I have the time, to add to the relevant article(s). It's always been appreciated. Removing other people's legit additions, on the other hand, never was. Arminden (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: Thanks a lot for explaining. I'd like to suggest the solution which you may have already seen at Male menstruation. Of course, it's too short, but I hope that it can serve at least as a beginning. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rsk6400, thank you very much for the swift reply and the edit. Sorry if I had too harsh a tone. Yes, of course, that's a great solution. I'm happy to see the result, will try to add a few sources I've found in a quick google search. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk6400, regarding the recent edits at the African-American page, I was reverting an editor that had been changing links in unnecessary ways on a few articles, mainly changing links from colonial times to post-revolution ones, but I don't watch this page closely. I got 16th century and 1600s a little mixed up, too (I promise I don't usually do that :).) I won't revert back or get too involved with the talk page, if the info looks like it fits with the article, then I have no issues. Happy editing! AnandaBliss (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the past 2 days you have been reverting my edits on slavery-related articles. First of all, I have went ahead and created the article Indian Ocean slave trade, since you mentioned you did not want redirects to the Indian Ocean trade. Second of all, you said in the revision history for the Slavery in Africa that "Subsequent changes of "Arab slave trade" to "trans-Saharan / Indian Ocean slave trade" should be discussed on the talk page of Arab slave trade", someone already created a section on that topic, but with no reply. The same person created a discussion on a different page that you can read here. In my opinion it is best for "Arab slave trade" to be split up to into "Trans-Saharan slave trade" and "Indian Ocean slave trade". If you changed your mind on the subject then I will bring back my old edits, after fixing any mistakes. I will also later be going to expand the article Trans-Saharan slave trade. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim5361: Thanks for discussing. There are two different problems: (1) I reverted many of your edits because links to articles should not confuse the user. If a user clicks on "East African slave trade" and then arrives at "Indian Ocean trade", they will be confused. The same applies if they click on "Trans-Saharan slave trade" and then see that there is nothing about the period they were looking for. You seem to have already solved the problem at "Indian Ocean", thanks for that. But still, the next problem remains: (2) If you think that "Arab slave trade" should be split up, you can start a discussion there with a heading explicitly stating that you want to split it up. You can also invite that other user to take part in it, using "Ping" and some words like "I saw your comment above, what do you think". The decision whether to split or not should be based on the usage in WP:RS, and that has to be looked into. I didn't make up my mind yet, but I see that there are two archives connected to the talk page, and I know that the subject of slavery is highly emotional with editors having different emotions depending on their Arab, European or African backgronds. Wikipedia is committed to NPOV and RS, so we absolutely have to use the terminology of modern historical scholarship. And before making changes to the whole system of links in related articles, please try to establish consensus among the editors. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article Arab slave trade several times over looking for text to move to Indian Ocean slave trade or to trans-Saharan slave trade, the rest of the Arab slave trade article could be move to some other page like Barbary slave trade or History of slavery in the Muslim world. It also seems that everyone who replied to my talk page at the Arab slave trade agreed to the re-organization, I am not sure if there are any other regular editors. Now I am just waiting for your green light so I can bring back my old edits. Ibrahim5361 (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim5361: First, congratulations: Your idea really seems to be an improvement to WP. Still, I think the article Arab slave trade should be split up first, that means really removing the content from there (with an edit summary like "Moved content to Indian Ocean slave trade, see Talk") and then inserting it in the target article with an edit summary containing the correct attribution. The consensus - as far as we can see now - is that Arab slave trade should be reduced to a disambiguation page. I personally think it should link to all four of the articles you mentioned above (Indian, trans-Saharan, Barbary, History). After that, I will have no further objections to your "old edits", but I think first things (splitting up the article) should be done first. Happy editing. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rsk6400,

The nation of France did not ban slavery until 1794, after Vermont, Denmark, and several states in the Northern US had already done so. France then reinstituted slavery in 1802. The source very clearly acknowledges word-for-word that Vermont was the first sovereign state to abolish slavery. 021120x (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk6400,

I think "Comperative mythology" section at "Ancient North Eurasian" is way too speculative and is full of weak assumptions and synthesis. Objective truth is that there is literally no factual evidence to suggest that all those myths (from South America to the Siberia and even the Middle East) are from the Ancient North Eurasians. The problematic section is the broadest section of the whole page and this needs cleanup.

46.221.72.83 (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mess whit genetics and races and poems not maps please.when you have been reverted take it to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:6759:FB01:8030:CCB3:7AB9:9D5E (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that when voicing your displeasure with edits or changes to the above mentioned topic, you attempt to write your complaint in a more grammatically correct way so that users will not have to decipher what you are saying. Especially when the topic you are talking about revolves around someone not editing a page to your liking.

Instead of the barely comprehendible suggestion/complaint where you wrote: "Mess whit genetics and races and poems not maps please.when you have been reverted take it to the talk page."

I believe, if I interpreted it correctly, you meant to say, in a more coherent/intelligent way:

To whom it may concern, can I suggest that you not edit or change maps until the change is discussed in the "Talk" section first please? I do not mind if a user edits sections on genetics, race or poems but, if an edit is reverted, discuss the edit in the "Talk" section before proceeding with your edit again. Thank you for your time. Intelligently & sincerely, Mr./Ms. 2001:8A0:6759:FB01: 8030:CCB3:7AB9:9D5E Esq. Jandg4206 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You said: "Coon is not a reliable source, because he is outdated", but i edited the section about Coon, so it is the most reliable source. "The third "Keltic" or "Hallstatt" type Coon takes to have emerged in the European Iron Age, in Central Europe, where it was subsequently mostly replaced, but "found a refuge in Sweden and in the eastern valleys of southern Norway." - this is a description of the Osterdal (or Hallstatt) type. The Keltic type is the most common in Britain, for example. It is not found in Scandinavia. You can read it here: https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-VIII6.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiprivet (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-VIII6.htm - it is from Coon's book, no changes. I just wanted to correct a mistake in the Nordic Race article. If you don't trust me, you can do it yourself.

https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/racesofeurope.htm - entire book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiprivet (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk6400, Just FYI this editor is also arguing that Coon is a reliable source on my talk page. I believe that I've answered them satisfactorily there. Generalrelative (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't say why a person can't correct a mistake in an article about the Nordic race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiprivet (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies to Rsk6400 for hijacking your talk page, I now see what Sergeiprivet is saying. I took a look at this (repugnant) book and see that Coon was indeed drawing a distinction between supposed "Keltic" and "Halstatt" types, rather than conflating them. I've edited the article to reflect this. Generalrelative (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: Thanks for "hijacking" my talk page ;-), thanks for your diligent work. I like the result. Our readers have a right to correct information about a theory that was once influential, but they also have the right to know that it is pseudo-scientific. I always wonder why so many people think that a book written more than 80 years ago can be of any use in understanding today's reality. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coon is the most intelligent anthropologist I've ever read. He is not a racist, unlike Hans Gunther. I'm surprised you hate him so much. @Generalrelative: Thank you for understanding me, although my change of this article was more correct, because now the Keltic type is not mentioned)

@Rsk6400: I completely agree re. the appropriate way of handling Coon. But I'd say the problem is not so much the age of the work –– even within the field of anthropology Zora Neale Hurston's book Tell My Horse is still worth reading despite having been published in 1938. In my personal opinion it has more to do with the psychological appeal of racialism, which I think accounts for both why people cling to authors like Coon and why these authors made such bad methodological choices in the first place. We live in a world where racial typologies loom large, not just in our politics but in our fantasies too, e.g. Lord of the Rings with its elves and orcs and their inherent traits (I wouldn't be the first to find in that fantasy a troubling reflection of the European racial imaginary), so it's very tempting to view these types as natural kinds. Anyway, just my 2¢. Generalrelative (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: Immediately after I wrote it, I started doubting my own statement regarding the age of the work. Even old Thucydides is still helpful to understand some aspects of modern politics. What I wanted to say was: I wonder why some people prefer an old book over modern consensus. I agree with you, but I want to add some aspects to your remarks about Tolkien: All humans are one race, even an elf can become a dwarf's friend, although those two races normally don't like each other, and the greatest hero is a hobbit, belonging to a race normally despised by humans. But this might be a fan's POV ;-) --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Tolkien certainly had some progressive things to say about prejudice and such, alongside implicitly conveying a lot of ideas about race that were really just paradigmatic at the time. A rather subtle example: there's a line at the very end, after the "scouring of the Shire", where it says something like "and that year there were an inordinate number of babies born with blue eyes" as a way of conveying that the Shire had been sort of magically blessed. And of course while all men are of a single "race" in this world, the elephant riders of the east and the Corsairs (a term originally used to refer exclusively to the pirates of the Barbary Coast) naturally ally with Sauron. Anyway, just wanted to offer these additional observations because it's fun to chat about. Thucydides is indeed still an amazing resource. Generalrelative (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please explain why you have reverted my addition to the Lynching article, advising caution to a disturbing photo? Best regards Ertly (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ertly: Your concern about that picture (and / or others on the page) is shared by at least one other account and one IP (edit comments on 2 January). There is a recent discussion at Talk:Lynching#Should we take the photos down?, where I and another user pointed out the relevant guidelines, especially WP:NODISCLAIMERS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: Thank you very much for the explanation...Ertly (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I brought those pictures from the same article in Wikipedia French and I tried to put them in appropriate sections. I appreciate if you could tell me what I have done wrong, Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex-h: I didn't see that fr:Antiesclavagisme aux États-Unis had the same pictures. That's why I thought you made a bad joke. Still, a picture showing a demonstration against "child slavery" (whatever that meant at a time when slavery had been abolished) in 1909 is not a good illustration for a section describing the 1830s. The same applies to the other two pictures which I removed (the colonization picture was in the correct section of the French article). If French WP has an obvious error, we should not copy that error to English WP. Thanks to your hint, I was also able to correct the French article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rsk6400, Thank you for your advice Alex-h (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping for you to participate at Talk:Mal'ta–Buret' culture. I know you have good intentions but my edits are trying to give the entire context of what the paper is saying rather than putting in a finding that contradicts previous papers and nothing else. 50.92.71.79 (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. In my years on Wikipedia I have had a few disagreements with other editors. However, this is the first time anybody has dared to revert a talk page entry.

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the term African Americans is vague, and that deserves to be elaborated upon. You may disagree, that is fine. But to suppress a view that you disagree with is obnoxious, and has no place in Wikipedia. Tuntable (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP is based on WP:RS, not on jokes among colleagues. Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. If you think that the general usage of the term in English language is not correct, you might consider writing an e-mail to the editors of relevant dictionaries. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to conversate 'Rsk6400.' You mentioned in my last edit the following: who is regarded as "Black" in a modern classification. Well, that is a very good question. Nobody really knows. What we do know is that the Ancient Egyptians frequently allowed the Medjay, a Cushitic group, into their armed forces during the conquests of Asia. If you don't think they're black, then check out the A-Group people, who had the closest significant genetic and archaeological connection to the Naqada Egyptians. Maybe Ramses III, whose genetic connection (Haplo E1b1a1-M2) is shared most amongst Sub Saharan Africans. If HE isn't black, see out the Kushites of the 25th Dynasty, who conquered the Nile Valley from present-day Khartoum to Sinai and (temporarily) eradicated the Assyrian threat in the Near East. Well, IF they aren't black then maybe the Meroeites, who were ruled by women queens and saved their empire from European domination, and later expanded into Upper Egypt before the Axumite invasion around 350 that ended the kingdom. Based on ALL this evidence. It is the most reasonable opinion that the Ancient Egyptians made up of heterogeneous mixtures of Near Eastern/Black African agriculturalists and pastoralists, with the Near Eastern dominating at times, and the latter at others. This is the most supported opinion on Ancient Egyptians in academia. So please, as a white person, I am tired of Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists playing out endless mind games to support their personal insecurities and prejudices. I put anthropological studies to men (or women) of low insecurity and prejudice, so I hope for you to maintain moral integrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARRYkimani25 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 'Rsk6400,' I am wondering if you read past the first page of the PDF. It literally states in the introduction (page 5),

For Egypt in particular, the authors display Egyptian tomb paintings depicting personalities with various skin hues and physiognomies. Additionally, the book referred to ancient texts like the Great Hymn of Aten that speak of differences in human beings ,and inscriptions for example, a stele of the Twelfth Dynasty Pharaoh Sesostris III, containing derogatory attributes of a neighboring people.3

The authors 

concluded that “Clearly the Land of the Nile distinguished among broad racial categories, characterized their behavior (however accurately or inaccurately), and even based social policy on those classifications respectively.”

There were many more references in the PDF to the vast array of features found in ancient Egypt if you bothered to read/elaborate on my source. However, I will agree to provide a source that the Toubou, Kanuri/Kanembu, and Zaghawa, are, in fact, alive, and living in the Sahara right now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LARRYkimani25 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's go by the definitions of racial dictators, which Racial formation theory argues created the modern meaning of "race" today. To them, to be "black" is the One-drop rule, or any trace of African ancestry means one is black. To that end, I would argue that most scientists agree that modern humans today descended from Lucy (Australopithecus) and originated from regions in Africa in present-day Ethiopia and Somalia, so everyone is technically "black", according to the original creators of race. Mind you, you cannot go to Africa today and get along with somebody on an ethnic, linguistic, or religious level by simply stating "I'm Black." Why? Because this is an arbitrary term with no objectively correct answer. 172.124.156.38 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC) S.[reply]

FYI

Best. --Boynamedsue (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why'd you delete this one tho (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18392218/). Isn't it considered a reliable source? It is the National Library of Medicine. Thanks in advance! Holloman123 (talk)

@Holloman123: It is considered a reliable source, but in this context it is a primary source, see WP:PSTS for an explanation of that problem. In short: The source only proves that one scholar used the expression "Father of Medicine". To prove that it is "often" used, you'd have to add thousands of primary sources. That's why a tertiary source (like the Britannica one you added) is preferable here. Also: The statement that Hippocrates is called thus is not very controversial, so one or two references are sufficient.

Might I ask you to use edit summaries ? It makes life easier for other editors.

It looked like you were having problems with the signature. Just write ~~~~ (four times ~) and your signature will be there. Hope my explanations were helpful, if not, feel free to continue the discussion or to ask more questions. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot have any one editor's bias be the deciding factor for which people are considered to be of Middle Eastern. A somewhat obscure page is the wrong place for a debate about who is of Middle Eastern ethnicity and who is not. Instead, the Middle East page has long standing consensus about which ethnicities are considered native to the Middle East.

This should be the basis for the inclusion criteria for any list about people of Middle Eastern ethnicities.

And if you have any disagreements about who you think is Middle Eastern, you should take it there and try to get the consensus overturned.

Please weigh in on the ["Middle_Eastern_Superhero"?|talk page] and either give your thumbs up for support, or if you object explain why.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I sure have thanked you but got a technical error so I repeated it many times, my computer is a bit stiff, I am fixing it, hope you ignore it, thanks German people (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@German people: No problem. Better to thank me than to shout at me. ;-) --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT remove POV tags solely because _you_ believe something is a fringe theory. And your premise in the Fringe Theory notice board was 100% flawed. These tags need to remain until the issue is resolve and it was absolutely not.

The POV tag MUST remain until the issue is resolved and that means there is agreement on non-biased inclusion criteria.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody wants to get some background information on the above comment, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#User:Bob_drobbs_flooding_discussions. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed you've reverted my addition to the slave catcher article. I wanted to let you know that I plan on doing some major copyediting and minor additions to the article, keeping in mind my limited free time. With that in mind, I was wondering whether or not you would be interested in working on the article together or if you are too busy or uninterested. Irregardless, I thought I should let you know. Adios, Tubesleveret15 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tubesleveret15: Thanks for not resenting the revert and the notice on edit summaries I dropped you. I'm a teacher, so sometimes I have the bad habit of wanting to correct each and every one. Well, Slave catcher surely needs a brush up. That paragraph we were working on starts with the Caribbean and then jumps into 19th century U.S. - it's a mess. But sorry, each morning I look at my watchlist of race-related or slavery-related articles and see there's enough work for the day. If you have any questions, I'll gladly try my best to help out. One more idea: As soon as you will have 500 edits and 6 months of editing here, you can checkout https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ to get access to information pools like JSTOR. Happy editing. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: Hi, me again. I've made some (admittedly very amateur) copyedits to the article, if you're interested in looking at it now. Thank you for the friendly advice, it is very much appreciated :). If you feel the need to contact me for any reason please let me know. Warmest regards, Tubesleveret15 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk6400, just wondering if you have any thoughts about how to deal with persistent edit warring from Seguro64. They've now violated 3RR at Monogenism and removed our warnings on their talk page. I'd prefer not to bring the matter to AN3 –– partly because it can invite drama and partly because of frequent inaction there due to backlog (which could be taken as implicit endorsement of this behavior) –– so I'm wondering if you have any other ideas. Thanks for your diligence across a wide variety of articles. Generalrelative (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: thanks for your remarks about my "diligence", and thanks for your diligence. WP is a bit frustrating when it comes to spending most of one's time dealing with questionable edits. I fear you are right about not taking it to AN3 now and I don't have a better idea than the one you already put into practice when you pinged the admins. You may already have seen the result at User_talk:El_C#Seguro64,_George_Floyd which is not very encouraging. I don't see what we can do except wait until they get themselves into trouble which happens to many troublesome editors after some time. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Wise words. Thanks for linking me to that discussion. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you are caught totally off guard by this user's sockpuppet investigation request alleging that you and I are the same person, it comes on the heels of my own request which resulted from a bit of digging I did into a suspicious SPA at Talk:George Floyd. I am sincerely sorry that you are now further involved in this silly drama. Hopefully it can be brought to a swift and decisive conclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: No need to be sorry. Better to share this experience with an editor I can respect than with a disruptive one. ;-) As far as I can see, the people at sockpuppet investigations are quite reasonable humans, so I'm not nervous about this. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That SPI was an excellent idea ! When I looked into it, I saw your wonderful comment at Talk:George Floyd: The point of WP:AVOIDVICTIM is that Wikipedia is guided by, among other things, a shared interest in basic humanity. Maybe they mistook us for one person because we both share that interest. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, maybe :) Glad to see that these were resolved quickly. Thanks for the encouraging words. See you around, Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Shame the cranks that wrote this hugely opposed garbage control pages. Nuclear Milkman (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case somebody should wonder about this: Nuclear Milkman was blocked shortly after. I like and endorse WP:NONAZIS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. I've noticed you've created a Racism against Black Americans article, which looks excellent. That being said, I was planning to do some light copyediting throughout the article. If you see anything you feel is unconstructive, feel free to revert. I thought I should let you know since you've been cooperative before in order to avoid any confusion. Normally I wouldn't bother you with a talk page message for a matter like, but you did create this article, so it felt like a different circumstance to me. Regards, Tubesleveret15 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you considered changing the article to "Racism against African Americans"? I'm not opposing your usage of the term "Black Americans", but am merely curious as to which term you feel is more appropriate and why, if that's not too intrusive.Tubesleveret15 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tubesleveret15: Thank you for contacting me. Actually, I didn't really create the article, I only copied part of the extremely long Racism in the United States, following the discussion on Talk:Racism in the United States#Shortening the article. Feel free to improve. "Racism against African Americans" was my first idea, but since there are Blacks that identify as "Tanzanian Americans" or "Jamaican Americans" and face the same problems just because of the colour of their skin, I think that "Black Americans" is the better term. --Rsk6400 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLM might have technically started after George Zimmerman case but was only a Facebook hashtag. Things really didn’t start for the movement until 2014 during the Michael brown protest. So yes technically you can have BLM starting at that time but it’s more like # Black Lives Matter Regards. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alicia-garza-on-the-origin-of-black-lives-matter/#app Robjwev (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robjwev: I'm sorry, I don't understand you. The very source you cited above supports the claim which you removed twice from Racism against Black Americans. Additionally, I don't understand why you produce things like "led to widespread unrest in the town. leading to the creation of the Black Lives Matter movement", "in August 1619, The colonist sold food", or "privateers ships". --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at the time line I reverted your edit before posting this on the talk page. No editor is above the WP:Source mandate I will allow you time to add a source before (this one if you chose) before deleting it again. I would add the source myself but for some reason I haven’t figured out yet you undo any changes I make even if it’s sourced properly. FYI The colonists did exchange food and supplies for slaves this is well documented yet you deleted that important information. (that’s a conversation for that page not this one) I would be happy to provide you a reference for BLM if you want me to but one is needed. Robjwev (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: Seriously, I thought by going back and undoing the changes you might have gotten my point. You have to understand that the "transatlantic slave trade" is a very sensitive and critical topic. Most times people tend to only view the few descriptive paragraphs of a certain topic on Wikipedia, so information presented in those paragraphs should be very clear. The information contained there now - as edited by you - is not correct. Let me just point out some of the flaws:

1. This statement, "...who had been sold by other West Africans, or by half-European 'merchant princes' to Western European slave traders (with a small number being captured directly by the slave traders in coastal raids)" is childish and glossed-up. To be honest, it doesn't look like someone who wrote this actually read the history of the Atlantic slave trade (no offence). Like I said, this is a very critical topic, make sure the information is presented properly. If you say, "with a small number being captured directly by the slave traders in coastal raids", do you have any credible reference to reflect this (estimated figures to be specific)? Many poeople, I guess, see this as if the writer is trying to minimize the European traders' involvement in the extraction of the slaves. Well, they were heavily involved because they set up the "slave factories", they made all the arrangements for how these slaves were to be captured; they even provided weapons to the African middlemen (such as guns and nets). Think about something like this: "European factors (people who collected the slaves on the coast) seldom ventured inland to capture the millions of people who were transported from Africa as captives. An African middleman would usually sell his slaves to the European factor." I lifted this directly from a BBC online educational program. So, this might be shorten as "European factors seldom ventured inland, instead they were using African middlemen to capture the vast majority of people transported as slaves from Africa".

2. Also, "who had been sold by other West Africans" is so broad and vague. You have to understand that slavery is a sensitive subject. You have to say what really happened here: "sold by African middlemen to European slave factors". Here people reading this will know that there were specific individuals acting as middlemen for European slave traders who were actually involved in slavery, and not just broadly "other West Africans". What you might imply here is that there were the captives (slaves) and the captors (other West Africans) - meaning apart from the captives, West Africans were all involved, ignoring the fact that only certain individuals acting as middlemen were actually involved.

These are my two main concerns I would like you to consider, because I myself don't want to be going through this all the time; but I cannot sit by and see people being deceived by wrong information about a critical and sensitive topic about slavey.

NB. True that I'm quite new to editing here as I'm not that too familiar with how the referencing works, but don't use that as a way of dismissing my editing. Infact, I know others can easily correct the referencing part as long as the information is correct. --Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The page History of slavery in the Muslim world has been vandalized by 2a02:a44e:f153:1:d129:8cca:c03:41ce, whose vandalization of another page you recently deleted. I don't know how to erase this vandalization, perhaps you are willing to? I just thought I should let you know. I would have fixed it myself but my computor don't seem to let me do it at the moment. The page History of slavery in the Muslim world is unfortunately often vandalized. --Aciram (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you reverted my edit on the article African diaspora in Finland where I listed Lammin Sullay as one of the notable writers and journalists of African descent. What you probably didn't notice is that Lammin Sullay is already mentioned in the article as a notable person, being the founder of the newspaper Scandi-B in the 1990s. Did you hastily revert my edit on a quick hunch after discovering that my username is named after him? Regards, –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 15:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sullay: Thanks for starting the discussion. No, I didn't revert hastily, and yes, I noticed that he is mentioned in the article. In fact, I did a full text search for his name and found that he was also mentioned on Sesay, where you added him in 2017. All the other persons linked from African diaspora in Finland have their own articles, at least in the Finnish WP. That's why I reverted you. To be honest, I was wondering whether you were his son, in which case you shouldn't have added him. I'd suggest you first create the page Lammin Sullay (providing enough secondary sources to establish his notability, see WP:Notability (people)), and then link the page from African diaspora in Finland and from Sesay, where I also deleted him. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually an article about him in the Finnish Wikipedia. I actually just now realised that it's not mentioned on the "African diaspora in Finland" article. Does there have to be an article about him in the English Wikipedia as well for him to be mentioned on the "African diaspora in Finland" article? He is, after all, somewhat of a pioneer in modern-day literature and media about the experiences of Africans living in Finland. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 16:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many people linked from "African d. i. F." who only have a Finnish article, so I think a Finnish article is enough. I already restored the entry at Sesay, linking it to the Finnish article. But I still think that adding him to two categories would be too much. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit warning you placed on my talk page although it doesn't apply to me because of WP:3RR since I only edited this page a total of three times, the warning is not valid. Thank You in advance for understanding and I hope you withdraw this invalid edit warning and contribute to a meaningful discussion on the Slavery in Africa talk page. Regards, Robjwev (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robjwev: I think my warning was correct. WP:3RR says, any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: If that's the case, I should have sent "edit warnings" to you quite a few times. Instead of throwing edit warnings on other user's pages, we all should work towards an agreement that we could all agree on.

@Robjwev: There are rules telling us when to revert, and when not to revert. And I'm quite confident that I followed those rules. For a basic understanding, please take a look at WP:BRD and WP:CIR. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: You're framing WP:BRD and WP:CIR in a way that fits your narrative I don't see anything you have reverted that fits into these categories referenced. Not accusing you of anything but it seems as if other editors are beneath you when it comes to these subjects. I've seen your reverts on other pages and you revert others more than you should without any productive discussion or compromise on your part. When they revert your reverts you slap an edit warning on them and do another revert in an attempt to make your reverts or edits the last word, that's not how this works. I also noticed that you have ignored my attempts to talk about the content in question and continue to justify your actions. We share a common interest in several pages I will continue to work with other editors and hopefully you on these pages. How do you feel about a "Request for comment" Robjwev (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody is free to start an RfC. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When clearly Native American's origin is more complex and some anthropologist disputes that they are Mongoloid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

" Most amerindian groups are derived from two ancestral lineages, which formed in Siberia prior to the Last Glacial Maximum, between about 36,000 and 25,000 years ago, East Eurasian and Ancient North Eurasian. " <--- Please have a look at what Ancient North Eurasian is.

" A 2013 study in Nature reported that DNA found in the 24,000-year-old remains of a young boy from the archaeological Mal'ta-Buret' culture suggest that up to one-third of indigenous Americans' ancestry can be traced back to western Eurasians, who may have "had a more north-easterly distribution 24,000 years ago than commonly thought. "We estimate that 14 to 38 percent of Amerindian ancestry may originate through gene flow from this ancient population," the authors wrote. Professor Kelly Graf said.

In 1998, Jack D. Forbes, professor of Native American Studies and Anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said that the racial type of the indigenous people of the Americas does not fall into the Mongoloid racial category. Forbes said that due to the various physical traits indigenous Americans exhibit, some with "head shapes which seem hardly distinct from many Europeans, indigenous Americans must have either been formed from a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid races or they descend from the ancestral, common type of both Mongoloid and Caucasoid races.

-Vamlos (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamlos: First of all: I got eleven [sic !] messages that you edited my talk page. Next time, please use the "Preview" button to check that you really wrote what you wanted to write. Then: There is NO dispute whether Native Americans are Mongoloid or not. The consensus is that they are not, because nobody is. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There's a extreme biased on how the Mongoloid wiki page is edited. It only talks about Native American being Mongoloid but does not allow information about anthropologist also claiming that Native American does not fall into the Mongoloid racial category. Plenty of anthropologist had claimed Native Americans are not Mongoloids. Although many others do they claim they are Mongoloids and I agree aswell there should be information edited that contested they are not considered Mongoloid. Because it's true Native Americans especially North American have various physical traits, their head shapes hardly distinct from European and Caucasoid. Many lack even the Mongoloid appearance and facial features

Here are what Native Americans looks like. Their bone structure is way too robust unlike Mongoloids who are gracile.

Here's the average face of North Native American from different tribes (although there more tribes that was not included). I have never seen Mongoloids that look like these.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c8d75c00ff09e2dd7696bd5c93595305

https://brooklyneagle.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/nativeamericans-viabkmuseum.jpg

https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/vintage-native-american-girls-portrait-photography-fb.png

In any case trying to not include anthropologist giving information about Native Americans not being Mongoloid is basically tricking people that no anthropologist had ever suggested that Native American does not fall into the Mongoloid race category. It's quite clear that they look very distinct from Asiatic Mongoloids yet only information on them being similar to Asiatic Mongoloid is allowed but information that proves their distinct racial category is nor allowed. I'm not even agreeing that they not Mongoloid. because they are but more information must be edited so that this wiki page is not so biased. Vamlos (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Vamlos: Aren't you even aware of the fact that modern scholarship (except at the very fringe) doesn't work with racializing categories such as "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid"? This is 2021 Wikipedia, not 1940 Coonipedia. It's your choice still to adhere to such categorizing, but you cannot engage in a discussion with a blind eye about modern scholarly consensus. It's like arguing about whether the common cold is caused by evil spirit A or evil spirit B, when modern medicine says it's caused by a virus. –Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more like following this rule Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Why not just remove the entire Mongoloid wikipedia page if it doesn't exist. Regardless if the article is pseudo-science. If your going to edit information about how Native Americans are classified as Mongoloid by some anthropologist than there should also be information edited that contradicts of their racial classification by other anthropologist. A neutral and fair opinion from both sides should be given. I've seen many Native Americans and they always appear semi-Caucasian looking especially with their long hooked noses and robust head shapes and bone structures. North Native American, and many South American tribes even lack the Asian appearance that we call Mongoloid.Vamlos (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 4 days and I still had not received a response. I'm guessing this means you agree with me because like I said wikipedia request that are our answers to be neutral and with neutral point of views.Vamlos (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamlos: No, it means that I'm not interested in this discussion. Please make sure that you have read and understood WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if your not interested in the discussion. Do you acknowledge that there needs to be a fair balance on the classification of Native American. According WP:NPOV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. The Native American sources I published were all from reliable sources but according to you who removed my edit. You said " Don't see why we should present every detail ever written about Native Americans ". I have no break any of these rules ( WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE) that you told me to read and understand. Can you prove to me I'm doing original research, fringe theory ect. Vamlos (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote what you said "Anti-British and anti-French sentiment are mostly about political conflicts, not about discrimination." It is false. I frequently see Americans acting with prejudice toward us and the British people. Us French people, they call us "frogs" and mock our ways of talking such as with "Bonjour, baguette, hon hon" vernacular. British people get mocked for their accent which is a topic directly related to another article about discrimination. Where's the political conflict here?

Additionally, the article on Anti-British sentiment and Anti-French sentiment has the cultural discrimination navbar on it, I thought that would be appropriate to add the articles to these templates because I thought they were missing in the first place, so you could expect to see the article appear on there as an example of what consititutes ethnic or national prejudice.

MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSuperstar77: An edit summary should be short, but maybe I made it too short. What I wanted to say is, "The articles Anti-British and anti-French sentiment are mostly about political conflicts, not about discrimination." Additionally, I don't think that discrimination of French or British people ever reached a level like that of Jews, Armenians, African Americans, or other groups linked from the template. There is a similar discussion at Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar#Anti-Catalanism_and_Anti-Chilean_sentiment, in which WriterArtistDC brought forward another interesting distinction. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough re: citations. My logic was that citation policy requires them for any quotations (requirement for material likely to be challenged is for non-quote content). But if links to the respective Wikipedia/Wikisource articles meets citation policy requirements, works for me! Huskerdru (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a chance, would you please provide your thoughts here? I am trying to observe Wikipedia policy on citing a source for any direct quotation. Linking to another Wikipedia article is not a source citation. Huskerdru (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not required, it is a courtesy to request input for changes in controversial subjects that others may object to. Hopefully, you would conceder extending the same courtesy. Thank YouRobjwev (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how WP works, see WP:BRD. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you back to my comment, "Although it's not required, it is a courtesy" WP:BRD is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, and you did not engage in the discussion part of the cycle. Getting input from concerning editors is called respect and keeping with the spirit of collaboration and consensus. Here's some helpful information for you to review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Robjwev (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could've cited my sources when editing all those articles but I struggle to see how race is "obsolete". From a societal viewpoint sure correlation doesn't = causation but if you think ethnicities don't have unique physical traits you're in denial. The trouble with being "colour-blind" is that you're fighting ignorance with ignorance. So I regret nothing about what I did and even if it was to no avail you can't change the fact we're all different, which is something to celebrate rather than reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan27032 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're all different, and yet you think it makes sense to group people into arbitrary and rigid categories? It's grotesque to call racialism a celebration of diversity. And assuming that "ethnicities [...] have unique physical traits" is nonsense. In most parts of the world, ethnic groups are phenotypically indistinguishable from neighboring ethnic groups. The farther you go, the more different people will look, but that's not what ethnicity is about. Ethnicity is culture, not skin-color which comes in infinite shades. –Austronesier (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "arbitrary and rigid". The only way they could be is if you let your race define you, and whether it's a deciding factor in whether you get a job or not, which is a thing of the past. Acknowledging the existence of race instead of buying into politically correct pseudo-science isn't racism either, and it's a celebration of diversity because you're embracing your background and what makes you special (no that isn't to say any race is superior) as for ethnic groups being "phenotypically indistinguishable from neighboring ethnic groups", well, you ever consider that subdivisions are a thing? Japanese and Indonesians are both part of the Mongoloid race but as you said will have unique differences in skin tone. That isn't because race isn't real it's because they belong to subdivisions within their race. And honestly this is like saying dog breeds are "obsolete" because "all dogs are the same" therefore Rottweilers and German Shepherds don't look different because they're different breeds but look different because geography, despite both breeds originating in Germany. --Dan27032 (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan27032: Please refrain from making any more edits on my user talk page, please don't sign comments after you received an answer, and please read at least one reliable source (WP:RS) about race. --Rsk6400 (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what you took away from all of what I said? Besides I haven't really posted on people's talk pages very often and the UI is pretty vague, so I don't care if you're annoyed at me for signing my comments after just learning how to. --Dan27032 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

You removed an addition I made to Nat Turner's Rebellion, including the detail that the insurrectionists killed 24 children. You said it was due to the source not being about Nat Turner but rather was from a John Quincy Adams biography. I then cited an encyclopedia entry on the man, a text on the history of the South, and a text on black Virginians. I think you will agree that each of these meet the standards set broadly across Wikipedia historical articles for relevance. 208.102.177.99 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk6400, You appear to have deleted my edit to the Anti-Semitism page. I agree with your assessment that basing the entire Frankish church on a study centred on Lyon is excessive. This was a hastily hurried point on my part; nevertheless, I believe there is much to be gained by this fresh scholarly effort, and I will work on a new edit in the next 48 hours - please let me know if you would want to read it first. If you'd like, I can also send you a copy of Warren Peze's piece, which has been translated into English. I hope you are well, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.. Tubbyavocados (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tubbyavocados: Thanks for starting the discussion and thanks for your thoughtful words. Since there are many editors interested in that article, I'd think it fair if all of us see your next edit at the same time. Meaning, I'd prefer not to be the first one to read your forthcoming edit. That's also in line with the WP:BRD cycle. Still, let me give you some ideas:

• „Antisemitism“ spans many centuries and all countries. A single school of thought based in Lyon might not be relevant for this article.
• WP articles should be based rather on works giving an overview over the whole subject than on studies focused on a single city or a short period.
• IMHO, your edit was vague regarding the “side notes” (what kind of notes to which texts ?) as well as regarding the nature of the changes.

Happy editing, —Rsk6400 (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that popularity was more important than fact on Wikipedia, but I'm not surprised. I'll leave the article as reverted, but I will point out that the Declaration of Independence did not establish the United States of America, or even use that term at all, and the independence of the nation was far from secure or being internationally recognized in 1776. In fact, the article "United States", states in part that "After its defeat at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, Britain signed a peace treaty. American sovereignty became internationally recognized..." Nevertheless, let's not educate people if we run the risk of offending them.

Regards, ETO Buff (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ETO Buff: There are several dates that could be considered the founding of the US, from the First Continental Congress to the inauguration of the first president in 1789. If international recognition is the most important date (which I doubt), the treaty of Paris (1782/83) would certainly be a better date than Yorktown. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rsk! Hope all is well. Per your recent reversion on Origins of the American Civil War, you said that it would be better to have a short description that is understandable without the article's title. I see where you're coming from, but upon checking out WP:SHORTDESC, there doesn't seem to be any instance where the short description of an article would appear without the article's title. The reason I made the edit is because it sounded redundant/repetitive the way it was, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Have a good one! Sweetstache (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sweetstache: Thanks for pointing out WP:SHORTDESC. As far as I see, there is no example given where a short description contains a reference (like "the conflict") to the title, and I can't remember that I ever saw such a short description. But I think that our article matches the criterion of WP:SDNONE, so I just put "none". BTW: You will have seen that I changed or reverted a lot of your edits to a lot of articles. Still, I don't feel that there is a real disagreement, because all your edits were well in line with WP's NPOV and also WP:NONAZIS (as I hope mine were, too). Happy editing, --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that you used a script to undo all of my edits to the Canaan page. I am very grateful for your knowledge and assistance in fixing the the direct quotes that I edited in error, as well as fixing the parts of the the page that I unknowing broke due to making the edits via the visual editor and a mobile browser to review my edits. Needless to say, this was a humbling yet welcomed learning experience for me. You have my most sincere thanks.

With all of that being said, I'm unlear on why you reverted all of the edits I made to the page's Age/Era notations. I would appreaciate your reasoning and insight because I can't see what was wrong despite reading over the style guidline that you linked (again, thank you so much for providing me the proper information).

Thank you in advance for your time and knowledge!

ChiXiStigma (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChiXiStigma: I hope that the "humbling" experience was not too hard - human beings and especially Wikipedians learn by doing and that includes making errors and being corrected. At least that's my experience. The script I used is called Twinkle. You can read more about it at WP:Twinkle. The reason why I reverted you was that MOS:ERA explicitly states that an "article's established era style" shall not be changed without prior consensus. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400: Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious to me the first time I read it. I’m not sure how my reading comprehension failed in such a spectacular fashion, but I truly appreciate your grace with which you replied to me! Thank you for all of your time and knowledge. I hope you have a wonderful day/night! ChiXiStigma (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I have a question, and you really need to answer immediately. Why would you remove the racial slurs on the See also page for Colored? You said it was not a valid reason to discard links, but I know that it can offend black people. So why is this nesscessary for you and not me? Lilkitty200 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilkitty200: On WP, there is no "need to answer immediately". WP is not censored, see WP:NOTCENSORED. The articles Negro and Nigger are part of WP and can be linked. WP rejects racism (see WP:NONAZIS), but the supposed feelings of somebody are no valid reason for the removal of content. Since both Colored and Negro were formerly used in the US in a neutral sense, a link to Negro seems justified. But I agree with you about Nigger, which always has been a slur. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're a Benedictine monk? Props! That's very exciting. I've done some work on a few people in your order. The abbey doesn't have an English article yet, but we can work on that--or I can, if you want to avoid having to place a COI tag. And you were in Tanzania? Interesting--let's talk, one of these days: I have an interest in the German mission in Africa, and if you don't mind I'll email you a URL with my most recent academic work, so you know I'm not just a mean administrator, haha. Alles gute, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treatment of slaves in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400:If you don't mind, I'm just simply curious as to how you came to be such an expert of the African American experience being a German citizen?--Taharka155 (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Taharka155: Hitler's racist government caused the total destruction of my country from 1933-45. That's one reason, among others, why I don't like racists. And I think the idea that it's only ancestry which determines a person's ethnicity "is only a racist's pipe dream." (borrowing Dimadick's words) --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rsk6400, you may want to check out the recent additions by a user who included large amounts of rather dubious content making much claims about Caucasoid populations, Indo-Europeans and "Europid mummies" in the article Xiongnu. It is not only WP:OR, but also off topic according to WP:RS. Furthermore I suspect more personal motivations behind the user, but lets see. Here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xiongnu&type=revision&diff=1061856088&oldid=1061485801

I doubt that fringe theories about Caucasoid mummies, Indo-Europeans, and blonde blue eyed people is relevant for the historical nomadic confederation of the Xiongnu. Other than die-hard racialist, most are not really interested to read such fringe hypotheses in the lead and first section of the article. May you have some time to check this out. Happy Christmas and a good new year!2001:4BC9:926:4AAE:985C:99DD:1637:F5A2 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close my comments on race as a biological classification?^[1] They were explicitly about improving that section. It seems like you merely disagree with an opposing argument. Weagesdf (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Weagesdf: WP follows scientific consensus. If you don't agree with science, there are a lot of forums that welcome your advocacy. You can find them all over the Internet. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any citations of the scientific consensus claiming that? On the one hand, you closed the talk on social constructionism, in which the article implies that a strong form of social constructionism is used, which would claim that there is absolutely no biological basis for distinctions of race being made. On the other, you closed the talk about biological classification which only follows Western scientific consensus if you include anthropologists and sociologists along with biologists. There is not anything resembling a scientific consensus among biologists worldwide in regarding humans as biologically distinct or not ^[2]. Further, the claim that race has no genetic basis, such as in medical science, would point to it not even being part of scientific consensus, but a political question ^[3]. But there is not a medical consensus, as it is still an ongoing debate ^[4]. It appears as though you are just trying to silence ideas you disagree with. Weagesdf (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is all covered and referenced in the article. Rsk was absolutely right to close the talk page section you started. Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to articles. These discussions typically take the form:

The article currently reads X which is not adequately supported by sources and/or editorial policy because Y. I suggest that we change it to Z.

If you can formulate whatever point you are trying to make in that format, then we can discuss it further. Otherwise, please go JAQ off somewhere else. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem using a primary source to reference an historical practice. The wiki guidelines (1) don't seem to forbid using a primary source as I did. I didn't "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" the material in the source; I stated it almost verbatim. Ficaia (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly selected two non-adjecant versions, getting the wrong impression. For which I apologize. You do know I have a talk-page just like this, i assume, where you can chew me out over this, so let's keep the discussion on the article TP on topic. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: No problem, happens during the heat of the editing process. Thank you for the clarification. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: Thinking about this edit of yours, I have to say that's not the kind of behaviour I expect from a very experienced editor. WP:AGF is the best way to keep discussions "on topic". Rsk6400 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have a talk-page where you can address any shortcomings I have. Discussions on article talk-pages are reserved for improvements of the article in question (WP:TPG), not venting personal gripes. This is an appropriate page to do that, and so is my talk-page. I pointed that out in the edit you refer to, and followed it up with this thread. That is not a violation of AGF, that is a, quite civil, request to adhere to talk-page guidelines. If that edit does not conform to your expectations, i kindly suggest you re-evaluate those expectations. Kleuske (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Kleuske, please see WP:DTR. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: "Don't template the regulars"? Please clarify. I haven't templated anyone. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay about how to address experienced users, that's all. Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Don't template them. I didn't. If you have any specific issues to point out, please do, but at the moment, your remark isn't very helpful. Kleuske (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, thank you. I think your remark was very helpful, at least it helped me to be at peace with this issue. Kleuske, I'm still not happy with your reaction, but I don't think we have to continue this discussion. I'm confident that we'll be able to discuss the content issue in a constructive way. I am impressed by your commitment to WP, and I hope you don't doubt my good intentions. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "I'm not happy with your reaction" feeling is very much mutual. Kleuske (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which of my replies makes you unhappy and why ? Rsk6400 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at the article " 6 October 1976 massacre". The article does mention that many people were lynched. Thank you and please leave that revert alone.49.178.174.232 (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention the word "lynching". A massacre by the police is not called "lynching". A problem with the article shall be discussed on that article's talk page, not here. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to provide a source when it literally says in the same article that there are only half a million black people in Germany. The number of black people in Germany doesn't compare to France or the UK and I want to make that known Dan27032 (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)