User talk:YorickJenkins

Nazi Terminology

Hi YorickJenkins. I see you have been editing a number of articles and changing references to the Nazi Party and Nazis to other, accurate but less commonly used terms. These edits have been reverted because they are contrary to wikipedia's policy WP:COMMONNAME to use the name most commonly used and understood. Many people are unfamiliar with the "NSDAP" or even the phrase "national socialist" while the term "Nazi" is much more widely used in both common and academic discourse. Please refrain from making these edits in the future without some consensus on the page. This debate has been had before many times and the consensus of editors is well-established. See e.g. [1]. Best, InspectorTiger (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am not convinced by the reason given for the policy decision. By the same logic a communist party should be called "commie" party. Both "nazi" and "commie" are slang expressions and the use of them in an encyclopaedia is unprofessional. To assume that readers will be unfamiliar with the meaning of national socialist or NSDAP is to assume that the average Wikipedia is much more ignorant than I am sure he/she actually is. There was another edit from me which corrected a point of grammar which was reverted for no reason.--YorickJenkins (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Yorick. I appreciate the response and apologies for reverting a grammatical correction - it was not my intention. As I said, your view is not that of the consensus of editors who have discussed this issue before. You are of course welcome to join the debate as it continues on any articles where such changes may be called for. Since Wikipedia is a consensus-based platform, I'd just point out the types of arguments and evidence that other editors will find helpful and convincing. Britannica uses "Nazi" over "National Socialist."[2] [3]. A search of JSTOR or Google Scholar returns many times more hits for "Nazi Party" than "national socialist" or "NSDAP" (while "communist party" and "communist" return many times more hits than "commie" or "commie party"). A search on Amazon Books for "Nazi" turns up many thousands of books while searches for "national socialist" or "NSDAP" turn up a few hundred (and here again "communist" and "communist party" outperform "commie" by several orders of magnitude). Searches in the archives of prominent newspapers and on Google Trends turn up similar results (on both Nazi vs National Socialist and Commie vs Communist). None of these facts on its own is definitive (and you may identify other indicators that point the other way). But this is the type of evidence Wikipedia editors look for and use to define what is the actual WP:COMMONNAME; argument by analogy or merely stating an opinion are not likely to be well-recieved. Happy editing! - InspectorTiger (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Covid deaths

On the contrary, for most victims over 80 covid is the main cause of death and not a secondary factor. Abstain from making edits based solely on your personal opinions, thanks. --Pesqara (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Hello Pesqara. I disagree with your comment. Doctors are legally obliged to issue death certificates and each certificate must include a cause of death. "Death from old age" is not acceptable on a death certiifcate. Medical professionals will name Covid as cause of death even in cases where it is a contributory factor and not the primary cause of death. Death certificates do not allow for an indication of proportional contributory factors. Nearly everyone close to ninety years of age is within a few years of death with or without Covid. It is in my opinion very misleading to list Covid without qualificationas as the cause of death in Wikepedia with the inevitable inference that someone died from covid as a misfortune in the same manner as they might die in a car accident or from dhengi fever. Unless you are able to demonstrate that all death certificates indicated as death by covid 19 are primary death causes (and how can anyone do this?) my amendment should be allowed to stay. In simply noting that some not all causes of death were primarily caused by covid, I am simply pleading for common sense. Neither you nor I presumably have access to all the medical histories behind the deaths listed here and therefore neither you nor I are in a position to state to what extent covid was a primary or contributory factor to death. Even you write (which is only your opinion) that MOST victims over 80 covid is the main cause of death thereby conceding that it would be misleading to imply that ALL people listed here died directly from covid, yet that in fact is what the original statement states. For the reason I have given, this statement is misleading. However, I have moderated my amendment and hope the compromise is acceptable to both of us.--YorickJenkins (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside whether the break away region of the Ukraine should be called "the Ukraine" or just "Ukraine", how please do you interpret reverting my correction of references to foreign ministers without the definite article as a matter of my "opinion"? For example, you refer to the Russian Foreign Minister as Russian Foreign Minister. How is the introduction of the definite article in that case conceivably a matter of opinion? Agreed, the definite article or not before Ukraine is politically charged, but not surely the definite article before "Foreign Minister". Dropping definite articles in this case is journalistic shorthand, inappropriate to wikipedia. Furthermore, Foreign Minister, as in German Foreign Minister and not German foreign minister, should have large case lettering to indicate that it is a title and not a German minister who happens to be foreign. YorickJenkins (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

For matters of capitalization, please see MOS:JOBTITLES. As far as the article before "Russian foreign minister" and similar cases are concerned, these articles are not required in English, and are not really allowed unless the person's name is surrounded by commas, which was not the case in the version produced by your edit. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What evidence have you to make this remarkable assertion in favour of slick shorthand syntax?

When one refers to the British Prime Minister one refers to THE British Prime Minister, not British Prime Minister, except in journalese. Expressions such as "British Prime Minister" are principally used in journalese or in spoken English by modern media (about the last 10 years). I know of no authoirity of any kind defending the abandonment of the definite article in written English. You might as well argue for the abandonment of the English word "the" completely and refer to United Kingdom instead of the United Kingdom and Thames instead of the Thames.

Can you kindly explain on what baiss you would write the United Kingdom or the Thames but not the British Prime Minister or the Russian Foreign Minister.

Foreign Minister is a title whereas foreign minister means a minister who is foreign.

There might be a case for abandoning the definite article completely in English. Is this what you want to do? After all the Russian language works perfectly well without a definite article at all! Howver, in English it is customary to use the word "the" to designate specific things and specific individaual cases of jobs. We also say the Moon because it is a specific moon. We say Venus but the planet Venus because in the second case Venus refers to a sepecfic planet.

I request that you use the definite article when writing about prime ministers and people holding any other professional title as is customary, standard and never till recently been forgotten by anyone writing standard Englöish prose. The written English used in wikipedia should not surely, be short hand or journalese. Your statement that the definite articles "are not really allowed" iss astonishing what can you mean "not allowed"? Not allowed by whom? This statement "not allowed" has no basis in any English sysntax rules of which I am aware and sounds as though it reflects a personal wish of yours not a statement founded in fact.. Writing British Prime Minister instead of THE British Prime Minister can at best be described as shorthand or sloppy writing. The definite article should stand as given.

Dropping the definite artcile for the Russian breakaway state of the Ukraine is a political matter and therefore inevitably a matter of opinion. When you write Ukraine instead of the Ukraine you are making a political statement of support for the Western backed separatists. YorickJenkins (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Using the ISO standard name for a country is not making a political statement - although refusing to do so might make such a statement. In any event, your apparent POV that the nations that emerged from the former USSR in the 1990s are breakaway states and therefore in some sense illegitimate is a WP:FRINGE POV, one that will not be reflected on Wikipedia (except for documentation in Russian irredentism) unless the reliable sources change.

As far as your desire to reverse the broad community consensus embodied in MOS:JOBTITLES: good luck with that. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Who decides ISO standards? The same people who run the WHO perhaps and other august bodies? Who decides that the breakaway state of the Ukraine (you are quite right I hope Russia puts an end to that pro Western little state) should be called Ukraine without the definite article or Kiev Kyiev or Peking Bejing or Brma Mynmar? Yes, I realise that I have no chance against the patently evident pro-Western bias here in evidence but I should like to know, if you can tell me, who decides to change the language in such as way and decide without 99% of the population being aware, that the Ukraine suddenly be called Ukraine, that the Crimea suddenly be called Crimea that Kiev suddenly be called Kyiev?

How do you get a job on the governing board of these more intelligent more experienced more comptent elite decision makers whom we should all respect and admire and recognise and acknowledge? When will this tiny minority of experts decide that the Thames be called just Thames? Maybe this little minority of "experts" will decide one day that the English language doesnot require the definite article at all. YorickJenkins (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Chemtrails conspiracy theory, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It is sad that wikipedia seems to have abandoned its earlier policy of neutrality. I do NOT personally believe in the chem trail theory, it is wrong of you to state that I do. Chem Trails are a conspiracy theory, some people believe in it, most do not. If Wikipedia were objective, Wikipedia aritcles would acknowledge the fact that some people beleive in it and that the matter is not settled. I did NOT introduce my own personal analysis, that is on the contrary what your wikpedia entry does by stating as a matter of fact that the chem trail theory is false. My additions are indisputable, namely that some people believe that the chem trail theory is a fake. A truly objective account would include the statement "the majority of people believe". Why don't you allow the inclusion of such a statement? Presumably because you do not allow even the remotest possibility that there is anything to be said in favour of an alternative argument.

I once donated money to Wikpedia and am begining to regret that I did so for I am increasingly gaining the opinion that Wikpedia supports a pro West pro liberal pro globalist narrative and is not neutral.

WP:NPOV is core policy. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and reflects mainstream sources, so it isn't neutral and doesn't pretend to be. Objectivity on political, social, and most issues is not possible. That's for mathematics and science. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

" which insists that" is highly partisan language and your interpretation. And "'according to the Carnegie Institution for Science" suggests that they are the only one to say that. We have aother sources and they do not all and should not all be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The honest and official confirmation from the horse's mouth that Wikipedia is biased and works with the opinions given by those in power. Wikipedia is clearly not objective about science either since the chem trail theory is dismissed as a consipracy theory which in 21 centruy Newsspeak means mumbo jumbo agitation. Rationally working on such logic, any alternative scientific view about any scientific theory whatsoever will be dismissed by Wikipedia as a conspiracy theory. Presumably, I havent checked, Wikipedia does not even allow that there are legitmate grounds for doubting the claim that the author of Shakespeare's works is the man born in Stratford upon Avon? And Jesus Christ? Are those who doubt his existence or the Gospel claims about water into wine and corpses dancing in the streets also consipracy theorists? Or maybe the Christians are the conspiracy theorists?

You refer to "Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy" yet you also write "Wikipedia is a maisntream encyclopedia and reflects mainstream sources, so it isn't neutral and doesnt pretend to be. Objectivity on political, social and most issues is not possible."

Well make up your mind please. You have a "neutral point of view policy" or "Wikipedia is'nt neutral". You can't square that circle. Which is it? YorickJenkins (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)