User talk:HighKing/Archives/2017/July

Disruptive editing at AfD-nominated articles

Hello, HighKing. I see that you've been deleting large amounts of material, some of it well-sourced, from articles that are currently under discussion at Articles for Deletion. This is very disruptive to the process, because it prevents commenters from seeing all of the material (including sources) that the article's editors intended to present to the reader. If you believe that the material is trivial or not needed, that's something that you can address in your comments at the AfD discussion. It is simply wrong for you to take matters into your own hands and remove that material from view.

Your actions are disruptive for another reason, as well. One of the positive aspects of an AfD nomination is that it sometimes causes editors to find sources for unreferenced statements, something that becomes well-nigh impossible if you remove the statements from the article. If unsourced material is a concern for you (as it should be for all of us), it is much less disruptive to simply place a citation-needed tag on the statement.

In your posting at Talk:2WEI Music, you stated that the rules of WP:BRD require the reverter to initiate discussions. You might want to re-read WP:BRD, because it simply does not say that.

I intend to restore the material you've removed from the AfD-nominated articles. I look forward to reading your response here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi NewYorkActuary, what you regard as my deleting "large amounts of material, some of it well-sourced" is an obtuse interpretation of my removing large amounts of marketing and promotional material from articles as per WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:YELLOW. I note your edit-warring was sparked because I deleted text from an article that you had previously edited - the article 2WEI Music which you have edited in the past and where you've now reverted three times but not responded at the article Talk page. You restored the following text:

Since early 2016, 2WEI has provided music for the biggest brands in the world, including Audi,[2] FILA,[3] Nivea,[4] Telekom,[5] Tinder,[6] and many more. They also created the song for LIDL's award-winning [7] international christmas commercial #santaclara, featuring singer Emily Roberts.[8] The song immediately went to Number 1 in Spotify's viral charts.[9] In early 2017, 2WEI wrote the music for de:Netto Marken-Discount's "The Easter Surprise—The True Easter Bunny", which was mentioned as Ad of the day by Adweek [10]” and reached over 10.000.000 Youtube views within a month.

It is worth noting that the entire article consists of that paragraph and the opening sentence of 2WEI Music is a music composition team based in Hamburg, Germany, founded by Simon Heeger & Christian Vorländer

Not only is the text clearly promotional with phrases such as "was mentioned as Ad of the day", "reached over 10million Youtube views within a month" and "has provided music for the biggest brands in the world", there is significant puffery and WP:OR used in the claim that "They also *created* the song for LIDL's award-winning international christmas commercial #santaclara, featuring singer Emily Roberts". The reference used to support this claim that they "created" the song doesn't even mention the company 2WEI Music (and doesn't mention that the award was one bronze medal out of 36 bronze medals awarded which is hardly notable or significant) and the second reference makes no mention of them either. Inclusion of this sentence appears to be based on promotion rather than verified facts and makes me question your revert comment of reverted removal of sourced material since this statement clearly is not sourced at all.

You state that it is disruptive to remove material that I believe is trivial or not needed. That is incorrect. Wikipedia editing policy is that editors are actively encouraged to remove material from articles that is in violation of policies or guidelines. This article (and the others where I removed material) are making unverified claims or claims directly originating from company sources and including lists of products, boasts and other sales-brochure type language. You are wrong to suggest that unreferenced statements such as these should be allowed to remain in articles for the reason that editors may find sources to back up the claims. Using this line of reasoning to argue to keep the text you re-inserted into the 2WEI Music article is extremely disruptive on your part. The text I have removed is clearly puffery, obvious marketing and promotion and/or completely unsupported by references. Also, not sure why you believe an article in AfD is different but there are no exceptions for articles under AfD.

You state that my actions are disruptive. I would argue that reverting the last 19 of my edits and posting this to my Talk page is a better definition of disruptive actions, especially when you are clearly reacting from my removal of material you re-inserted into 2WEI Music. A better approach would have been to respond at the article Talk page for example. Or post a polite query here on my Talk page with a non-inflammatory heading.

Finally, you invoked WP:BRD after your second revert and scolded that I had not opened a discussion on the article Talk page. First, if you invoke BRD then you should be aware of how it normally operates which is that the editor that performs the revert should open a discussion When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. Clearly, the editor that performs the first Revert should open a discussion and the "D" part of BRD is that the person should then engage in the discussion. I suggest that it is you who should reread BRD. It It is a moot point now and not that it made any difference in any case since even after I started a discussion there, you ignored it.

While it is true that just about all of the articles go on to be deleted, in many cases, I flag the fact that I have deleted material at the AfD discussions. Some AfD discussions flounder on the point that a topic may be notable (in that it has a minimum of two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability) but the article is overly-promotional and will be deleted for that reason - on occasion (rare I admit) my removal of large swathes of promotional material from articles have resulted in those articles being "saved" from deletion.

Your ignoring of my response at the 2WEI Talk page and the manner of your reversion of 19 of my edits is extremely disruptive and is clearly designed to be provocative and to elicit a knee-jerk response. Coming to my User Talk page and posting with a heading of Disruptive editing at AfD-nominated articles is *highly* provocative and disruptive on your part. If you truly were interested in a congenial resolution, I'm sure you could think of several alternative ways to broach this topic for discussion. It would be easy to understand how other editors might question your motives and your actions in this matter. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ruth Coppinger

How is it OR? She's a member of the Irish Socialist party which is affiliated to a global self-proclaimed Trotskist organisation? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the classic definition of OR where you take the fact that because she's a member of the Irish Solialist party, she must be a Trotskist. That may be so, but we don't know whether she is seen as a Trotskist by herself or others. Wikipedia BIO's need to be referenced. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually that is indeed the case; membership of the Irish Socialist party means, ipso facto, one is a Trotskyist. No OR. Membership of the NAZI party means one is a fascist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged You say above that she's a member of the Irish Socialist Party. That isn't what is says in the article. It says the party of which she is a member is merely affiliated with the Socialist Party. I also disagree with your ipso facto illogic and again point out that this is classic OR. Please read the first paragraph of WP:OR and the WP:SYNTH paragraph. What you are attempting to do is expressly forbidden by policy. Find a source. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. You set the bar too high. Nevertheless, what about this as proof, [1] Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Socialist Party is not merely affiliated to the AAA- it is the AAA. Their own TD admit it here - [2]

The role of the Socialist Party

The Socialist Party played a key role in the establishment of the AAA. Currently the three AAA TDs – Joe Higgins, Ruth Coppinger and Paul Murphy – and nine of the AAA’s 14 councillors are members of the Socialist Party. The Socialist Party also plays an important political role within the AAA. As a socialist organisation we believe that austerity measures are rooted in the crisis of the capitalist system which puts profit before all else. We believe that ending austerity and implementing progressive policies needs to be linked to ending that system and replacing it with a democratic socialist society run by working class people. This analysis leads us to argue within the AAA for opposition to supporting coalition governments or minority governments within Dail Eireann which don’t break with the dictatorship of the capitalist market. This can become an important discussion within the AAA as the General Election draws nearer. It also makes us an important internationalist force within the AAA arguing for real support for working class struggles and forces which challenge capitalism internationally. Join us today!

Building the AAA and building the Socialist Party are complementary challenges. We urge all our supporters to join both to build the forces necessary to bring about real, socialist change in Irish society.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged Fair enough, you've answered the question on the relationship between the AAA the the Socialist Party but you still haven't acknowledged that the issue of WP:OR prevents exactly the addition you propose. You still should find a reference especially if it is in the lede. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the first link that I provided? There's the requisite proof. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, I don't think so. Actually I don't even think it is anywhere close. The article is an interview with Joe Higgins and after Higgens states "No. There is no country that would represent the way we want society", the journalist adds "And anyway, the notion of single-country socialism is anathema to Trotskyists, who see nothing less than a global acceptance of their ideology as necessary to the accomplishment of their goals. This is their starting point and is why any attempt to argue about politics in the current context is doomed to failure. . I fail to see how you can take this quote and apply it to Coppinger. At best we could say that the journalist regards Socialists(? or who exactly?) as Trotskyists. Totally fails WP:OR to use in the context of applying it to any member of the Socialist Party. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It might not apply to Ruth in particular, but it is reasonable to say that it is the opinion of one journalist that he regards membership of the Irish Socialist Party and adherence to Trotskism as being synonymous. At the very least, it entitles us to say, "Some commentators believe that...". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I would hesitate using that label until there are multiple reliable sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)