User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2023/October

Consensus

I really wondered why you said you did not see the consensus in the discussion page for the Uyghur genocide. Please see here for more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUyghur_genocide&diff=1178110170&oldid=1178107821

Thanks! --Wengier (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You replied to yourself... You didn't actually make a proposal... Nobody responded to your comment... Two days later you claimed consensus based on a lack of disagreement... Thats not WP:CONSENSUS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It was another user (Pincrete) who made the suggestion, and I supported him. Within two days I did not see any objections from anyone else, so I Be bold and made changes accordingly. I certainly did not make changes without discussions or with objections from the discussion itself. --Wengier (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you made a bold change... It did not have consensus... It was reverted... You should open a talk page discussion if you want to make that change, it can't just be you and a guy going "this is a good idea" on the side of another conversation and then doing it two days later (note that 7 and 14 days are considered the traditional times to wait for other editor's input). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

There is indeed some truth in the comment, but it only appears there may be no consensus after I made the said change, even if there does not appear to be any objections in the original discussion. So I do not think I did anything wrong about this so far. But of course I will not do edit wars either. --Wengier (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you were editing in good faith, I hope going forward your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS has improved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Related favour

Hey. While I'm looking for sources on Davis and HotG, could you take a look at the contributions of this IP circa May/June 2022? They're the editor who added the claim about "incorrect facts and fabricated versions of the truth" to Davis' bio, and I suspect their contribs elsewhere may also be problematic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of those contributions look like OR or at least are drawn from a source that isn't included. Kind of interesting that they even bothered to include a source on Davis's page. I would hazard a guess that this is a long term disruptive user, probably has a case somewhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions on me

You have more than once insinuated that I am "endorsing a conspiracy theory" or similar. I have asked you several times to stop, but you seem to feel the need to persist in doing that.

I have made it extraordinarily clear that I don't endorse it. If you feel the need to continue accusing me of this, you need to back it up with compelling evidence that I'm doing what you say.

Or, ignore me and I'll avoid you? I think our conversations have been singularly unproductive, so maybe that's best. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't care what you personally believe, your argument reads as en endorsement of a conspiracy theory... Multiple editors have noted it, to quote TFD "The discussion has become pointless. ErikHaugen is claiming that the false assertion that a group of cultural Marxists is secretly trying to overthrow Western civilization is not a conspiracy theory because it doesn't meet their definition." to quote NewImpartial "I was talking about your claim that some conservatives use "Cultural Marxism" to talk about activists who might cause bad outcomes, rather than a movement to bring Western civilization down. You've made that distinction whole supporting it with no sources at all (and Horowitz doesn't say anything like this, nor would he be a reliable source in this context). You seem to be engaged in speculation that cannot possibly influence what any WP article sould say. Pur articles are based on reliable, secondary sources and not on what editors happen to believe to be true." to quote that IP "I've told you several times that the text is saying there's an all encompassing conspiracy (and there is no such thing to be a part of, so yes he's implying something that's not happening) and that creating our own interpretation of his words (as per your suggestions) would constitute Original Research on our behalf, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Yet with each exchange you've continued to push your views and so we're still discussing your dead horse. The stick is not glued to your hand, you can put it down and walk away." I could go on but I don't like walls of text. Diffs seem kind of pointless in this situation, it would just be diffs of what you've argued and we're well into dead horse territory with everyone telling you that you appear to be endorsing a conspiracy theory and you saying "No I'm not! Stop saying that" but for formality[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of these diffs do nothing to argue that I am endorsing any conspiracies, of course, so it's weird that you list them here. If you are misrepresenting me as endorsing conspiracies and your evidence is completely unrelated things like I note that I think Jordan Peterson usually uses the term "postmodernism" instead of "cultural marxism", for example, then you are going to have a bad time. I strongly recommend you stop. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 13:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to stop making this so personal, your argument supports/legitimizes the conspiracy theory whether you personally do or not. Whether you're right, wrong, mistaken, ignorant, bigoted, sainted, etc I don't know and honestly could care less... I care about the content of the article following the RS. Do you really think its the case that *all* of the other editors are misrepresenting your argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't care: great – stop saying that and we're all set. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The only reason its still being said is because you keep beating this extremely dead horse... The horse was dead a week ago, at this point you're just playing with hamburger meat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

COI

Hey there!

I don't believe there's a conflict of interest for the page I'm editing as I'm just a long-time viewer of Robert Lawrence Kuhn's show Closer To Truth; not related, and not an employee.

His page was out of date with respect to his show, including some of his work on China, so I just wanted to update it to add more context around his life and work.

Happy to clear up any other concerns. Thank you for moderating! JoshuaJT (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Unmanned surface vehicles manufacturers

A tag has been placed on Category:Unmanned surface vehicles manufacturers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The Louie Report as reliable source

Much appreciation for going over Louie Louie with a gimlet eye and noting the need for additional citations. I'll get going shortly on adding specific citations where recommended.

Regarding the use of The Louie Report as a reliable source, I had several conversations with another experienced editor (Binksternet) on this topic back in September-October of 2021 after he made similar deletions. My point then (and now) is that this site had been in existence for 20+ years and is widely acknowledged as an extensive and reliable source of information on "Louie Louie", Richard Berry, and related topics. The author, Eric Predoehl, has been interviewed and quoted by major publications and media outlets on "Louie Louie"-related subjects. I think it's a reliable source. After doing some of his own research, Binksternet agreed with me. Link to earlier discussions: User talk:Binksternet/Archive59. Topic was Louie Louie versions clean-up.

I guess the main question is this: How much of a track record is required before a single author site can be considered a reliable source? There are surely many extant examples and I think this one meets the test by way of expertise, longevity, authority, and notability. Will you concur?

Thanks for your consideration! Relbats (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Binksternet appears to be mistaken about what makes an expert in this context... Interviews and quotations don't do it. The answer to "How much of a track record is required before a single author site can be considered a reliable source?" is infinite if the author themselves is not otherwise a published expert. Has Predoehl published any academic articles? His profile[18] does not read like that of an expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that academic books and articles represent the gold standard, but it seems reasonable that recognized subject matter experts can also “publish” via newspaper articles, magazine articles, personal websites, interviews, podcasts, and even videos. If an acknowledged expert posts something that isn’t peer reviewed or lacks editorial oversight, it’s still from an expert source and should have credibility. Just my thoughts - I know you’ll have counterexamples! Relbats (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked whether Predoehl has published any academic articles because thats how we would determine if they were an acknowledged expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Point taken, and Predoehl falls far short of this standard. But that seems to confer experthood (if that's a word) only upon academics. Is there no other route available for the common man?Relbats (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Books, non-academic magazine articles, newspaper or trade periodical columns, that sort of thing... Maybe its a blind spot of out sourcing system but we really need more than just self published online. This has given me a lot to think about though, in the future all online may have to be acceptable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Some examples of how intertwined the "real" experts can get with the more narrowly focused, self-published experts. Dave Marsh, who literally wrote the book on "Louie Louie", cites Predoehl twice (pages 115 and 162) and lists him in the index. This academic article cites Predoehl three times (pages 73, 80, and 81). [19] This begs the question: Is a website that is considered reliable enough to be referenced in a peer-reviewed academic journal and a well-known book also reliable enough for Wikipedia? For information on "Louie Louie", Predoehl is the main man and has been for 20+ years! I agree with you that we need more thought on sourcing online material, particularly if it is repeatedly cited in other reliable sources.Relbats (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No he needs to be the author of that well known book or the academic article, those are minor cites. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No argument on that point. If he published his website contents as a book, then it would become reliable because it would be on paper vs. online. Of course, the book would then likely be digitized and put back online for easier access. It's a brave new world! Relbats (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Depends on how its published, through a reliable publishing house likely yes... Self published no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Atypical formatting

I will have you know that I'm a trendsetter when it comes to atypical formatting. If there is any similarity between JM2023's formatting and my own, then it's because he's copying me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Huawei

What do you think of the lede (lead) for Huawei? DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Huawei#lede Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)