User talk:Andrevan

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrevan.

Andre🚐's Talk ☎️ Page Archive 📇 Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64
☕ Threads archived by ClueBot III after 72h ☕

Contentious topics awareness

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people Eastern Europe or the Balkans gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion climate change articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues COVID-19, broadly construed complementary and alternative medicine He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Has this user made a silly mistake? Click on the trout to notify him!

This is my talk page. You can start a new thread by clicking here.

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Aniconism in Judaism

added a link pointing to Fiery furnace

Rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire

added a link pointing to Tsarist Russia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for your accusation that the list I put together is "cherrypicked"? Levivich (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cherrypicking (essay): If you are familiar with multiple credible sources on a subject and they are significantly different from each other, you may realize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines support reporting from some or all of the sources, and you should edit accordingly. If one editor is not familiar with some sources, another editor who is can edit accordingly. Irrespective of one editor's views, an article as a whole needs to conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines....an article as a whole should reflect the range of sources available on the article's subject. This does not require using every source that exists, just that the sourcing cited be reasonably representative of the range of sources that exist...It is legitimate to ask on a page's talk page once about whether cherrypicking occurred in a specific case. If your question is based on speculation, that is where you may speculate, and even then only if reasonable. The evidence is right there: refusal to accept apparently good sources, with some handwaving and citing of BESTSOURCES. Please explain how BESTSOURCES supports excluding the Cambridge History of Judaism, a reliable secondary history which you falsely claimed was an encyclopedia. See also policy on the misuse of the policy to falsely claim it supports a title test or a rationale under BESTSOURCES to exclude secondary RS which are quite reliable and oft-cited. BESTSOURCES says no such thing. Andre🚐 15:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for a definition of cherrypicked, I asked for your evidence that the bibliography I wrote was cherrypicked. "Refusal to accept apparently good sources" at Talk:Zionism doesn't have any relevance to whether the sources at Bibliography of the Arab-Israeli conflict are cherrypicked. I wrote that bibliography before you started your thread on Talk:Zionism, so the bibliography is in no way a response to anything you wrote on Talk:Zionism. Provide evidence that the bibliography is "cherrypicked" or strike the accusation, please. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrypicking is the action happening on talk citing made-up interpretations of policy. Please cite any policy at all which supports the discusssion on talk. There is no policy requiring me to stick to the bibliography that you chose from in advance. That is cherrypicking if you use spurious interpretations of policy. Do you withdraw the claim that Cambridge is an encyclopedia? Andre🚐 15:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote: Better sources would be secondary sources, academic books focused on Zionism. There is a list at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Zionism.

You replied: A cherrypicked list is probably how we got these non-NPOV articles.

If you didn't mean to accuse me of writing a cherrypicked list at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Zionism, please edit your comment to clarify that. If you did mean to accuse me of writing a cherrypicked list, please provide evidence that the list is, in any way, cherrypicked. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The action of cherrypicking is literally being demonstrated in the talk conversation; do you accept Cambridge as usable? If not, you're cherrypicking. Andre🚐 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more chance to clarify, retract, or substantiate your accusation that I wrote a cherrypicked list at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Zionism which is probably how we got these non-NPOV articles. Or you can explain it to the arbs at ARCA. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already explained myself clearly, I do not think you will be satisfied no matter what I say. Writing the list isn't cherrypicking, but demanding that I can't use Cambridge because it isn't on that list you've prepared is the cherrypicking. Andre🚐 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to edit your comment to clarify that you don't think the list is cherrypicked, and you don't think the list is probably how we got these non-NPOV articles? Levivich (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is clear, the explanation is clear. Do you accept that BESTSOURCES doesn't exclude the 6 Cambridge links I posted? Andre🚐 15:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated attempts to continue the content dispute here are not going to be effective. This complaint is about you accusing the list I wrote of being cherrypicked, and accusing the list of being probably how we got these non-NPOV articles. This is accusing me of POV-pushing by writing a cherrypicked bibliography. See you at ARCA then. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained, the action of cherrypicking is denying the usability of the Cambridge sources with spurious, non-policy based rationales, while demanding I choose from the list of your pre-vetted sources, that is cherrypicking plain and simple, and you haven't yet explained how it is supported by BESTSOURCES which in no way would exclude Cambridge, which is not an encyclopedia. I did not say anything about how you wrote the list, but saying that the bounds are acceptable sources is your prevetted list which excludes reliable Cambridge, is simply cherrypicking and that is the evidence for it itself, it's happening. A valid way to stop cherrypicking is simply to accept Cambridge as usable and add it to your bibliography. Andre🚐 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I appreciate you editing the comment to make this clarification: WRITING THE LIST ISN't CHERRYPICKING, but demanding that I use it is. However, now you've made another false accusation: when did I or anyone else ever demand that you use the list? Levivich (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, demand is strong, how about "request with invalid policy rationales"? Andre🚐 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about no. Look, Andre, zero tolerance for battleground behavior here. I suggested that we use different sources than the sources you suggested we use. This is not "cherrypicking" on my part. This is not "demanding" on my part. This is not a policy violation of any kind on my part. Usually, I would just ignore when people accuse me of misconduct solely because I dare to disagree with them, but not you, not this time. Clean it up, or explain it to the arbs when I ask them to reinstate your block. I did not cherrypick, I did not demand, I did not violate policy, by suggesting that the WP:BESTSOURCES are listed in that bibliography. I am not doing anything wrong by making that suggestion, and I will not tolerate you accusing me of misconduct because I made that suggestion. Clean it up -- like, really clean up that comment -- or explain it to the arbs. Levivich (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to agree with me, but you can't accuse me of misconduct solely because I don't agree with you. You need to find a way to disagree with people without accusing them of misconduct. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of misconduct, if you accept that Cambridge is a perfectly good source, then you are no longer cherrypicking. BESTSOURCES says to use scholarly RS. It says nothing about using sources with Zionism in the title. Andre🚐 16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just, once again, said that unless I agree with you, I am cherrypicking, meaning POV-pushing. By saying "no longer cherrypicking," you are saying that I am already cherrypicking. If you really don't see the problem with that, then in my view, you should not be allowed participate in this topic area. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrypicking is not the same as POV pushing. You keep trying to put words in my mouth. Quite simply cherrypicking is excluding some sources for invalid reasons. "Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally" Andre🚐 16:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your latest revision to your comment and drop this there. BTW, adding the book chapters that you've cited in Talk:Zionism to the bibliography was WP:POINTy. The bibliography lists books only, not individual chapters or articles. (If we listed chapters and articles, we'd have thousands and thousands of entries.) Books about Judaism don't belong on that bibliography, which is about the conflict, not about Judaism. One of the books was about Israeli law, so I put that book under the Israel section. The others were about Jewish philosophy or Judaism in general, I removed those as out of scope. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POINTy, it's literally the subject under discussion. POINT means disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate the point. I'm making good faith edits trying to help the NPOV balance issue on Zionism. I have no problem with your reverts, but I think the exclusion of books about Judaism or Jewish philosophy is quite arbitrary if they also discuss Zionism. Why not simply make another section for Jewish works? NPOV means throwing a bone to the side you don't agree with. Andre🚐 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve the NPOV and encyclopaedic nature of this article myself, but it's controlled by a small group, intent on pushing their own perspective as the established/factual narrative. You reverted Tyrone Jahir's edits to this page on the grounds that they didn't improve the NPOV issue, but at least Tyrone was attempting to do something about it - even is they do appear to have created that account especially for doing so :) . You seem to have plenty of barnstars, I'd like to invite you to spend some time working to improve this article. Obscurasky (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey, you think I have time for more contentious disputes? Andre🚐 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]