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

RovingPersonalityConstruct

I need your help on the Keelung page, which includes the lead I’ve expanded. This editor has no idea what User:RovingPersonalityConstruct. Please help me talk some sense into the user. 174.89.100.11 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent WP:RS/N discussion

See my recent discussion about reliability of WION at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: WION, following your previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source?. Surveyor Mount 22:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Re

• [1]. When I am trying to fairly explain views by author X on the subject, it does not mean I completely share his views or admire the author. To the contrary, I perceive everything with a grain of salt. But I think it is our obligation to correctly summarize whatever that author said, including his arguments and logic, especially if I read his books. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

And frankly, the claim that any of that can be regarded as "partial exoneration" of Hitler is absolutely ridiculous. I was surprised by such interpretation. Whatever could happen in the mind of Hitler can not be regarded as any "exoneration" for anything he did. Perhaps some people claim it, but not any author I read, including Suvorov. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Blaming the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union on Stalin and not Hitler (in fact casting Hitler as the victim of a devious communist plot) can definitely be described as a "partial exoneration" of Hitler. If you can't see that I suggest you cease editing related topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is something you say. Of course nobody (I mean any authors I read) ever blamed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union on Stalin. Stalin did not expect the attack, as everyone familiar with this history knows. It is another matter that he is usually regarded as someone who was in part responsible for WWII because of his cooperation with Nazi Germany before the war, signing the secret protocols to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the Soviet invasion of Poland. But such are simply historical facts, and of course a "majority view". My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Suvorov blames the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazis on the Soviet Union, thats his whole thing... Arguing that the Nazi invasion was a preemptive strike is what makes Suvorov Suvorov. Icebreaker, M-day, Suicide, etc were a joke when I was in college, I don't see anything that indicates that Rezun/Suvorov is any less of a joke today. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, Stalin has made enormous preparations for the war, and he was going to strike Hitler sooner or later. The only question is when. That has been extensively debated in the literature, but we are not going to discuss it here. Regardless, like I said, nothing can exonerate Hitler, and nothing changes the simple historical fact that it was him who has started the war of aggression, just like Putin has started his war of aggression. My very best wishes (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I would check again, there is absolutely not a scholarly consensus that Stalin "was going to strike Hitler sooner or later. The only question is when." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The aggressive nature of Nazi Germany was well known to the Soviet government, and they have made extensive preparations for the war. Yes, that was not enough yet. Do you think they would wait for many years until Hitler strikes them first, exactly as he did in June of 1941? My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thats an even more convoluted argument... So the Nazis did a preemptive attack on the Soviets to preempt an inevitable Soviet preemptive attack? That is outside what I recognize as mainstream scholarship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

After the occupation of Poland (last country which separated Nazi and USSR), the war between Nazi Germany and USSR was pretty much inevitable. That was only a matter of time. Both sides understood it, despite to false claims about "friendship" with Nazi in Pravda. This is widely known and even used by some modern-day commenters who say that Putin is destroying Ukraine as the last barrier between Russia and NATO, pretty much as Hitler has destroyed (occupied) Poland serving as the last barrier between Nazi Germany and USSR. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Reputable historians simply do not say that, war between the two was no more inevitable than war between the US and Soviet Union. Anyone who claims to be able to know how events which did not occur would have occurred is either a prophet or a charlatan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but no, debating why a historical event (such as WWII or the attack by Hitler on USSR) had happen is pretty much a legitimate history subject, and they are discussed a lot in the literature. Predicting what will happen is also a legitimate business, but it is usually done by military analysts, although some historians do express an opinion what will happen, for example during the ongoing war in Ukraine, even make specific predictions what will happen during next few months. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

But talking about an event which never happened (a theoretical non-WWII war between the Nazis and Soviets) isn't. Reputable historians simply do not do that, at least in their academic work... Those who dabble in alternative history fiction excepted. The idea that this sort of thing is truly inevitable is outside of the realm of academic history, that conception is alien to any serious academic. Thats History Channel not history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No one is talking about alternative history or The Man in the High Castle. These are real events of the past and real historians who study these events including why they had happen. For example, why did the October revolution had happen? But I am done with this. Thank you for discussion! My very best wishes (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"he was going to strike Hitler sooner or later. The only question is when." "Do you think they would wait for many years until Hitler strikes them first" these are all things which never happened, the Soviets never struck Hitler first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course they did not. But studying what plans Stalin could have for the future war with Germany (based on documents, the actual military production and preparations, actual events or other available data), is a legitimate research. It is a common place that military of all countries are planning for contingencies. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

At this point I'm kind of confused, why are we talking about what actual historians do when Viktor Suvorov isn't an actual historian? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

But this is hardly relevant to the case. Actually, I wanted to reply to your another comment addressed to me [2]. You say that you "don't have any old grudges here." How come when you say yourself that you do in your Evidence section [3]? You say that you "remember explicitly refraining from commenting because I was almost certain that it would lead to retaliation against me in the discussion I was working on. What this says to me is that this was always an open secret, we always knew that a certain group of editors would disrupt the project to get their way in their own little kingdom." Hence, you first make an assertion not supported by diffs, and then make conclusion from your own unsupported assertion. And after that, you say "we are not our past" (true), but ... bring very old evidence about "Use of Kot (1937) at Paradisus Judaeorum". I am not saying that being biased in such subject area is improper. But everyone is biased, let's admit it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Refraining from getting involved because I didn't want to create grudges is the same thing as having a grudge? Fascinating. Knowing that disruption is going on is not the same thing as being involved in that disruption, yes it was an open secret... That means we all knew about it even if we didn't talk about it. 2020 isn't very old, it isn't even old. We were instructed that the standard was anything older than six years is considered old but will still be accepted if relevant. 2020 was three years ago or less. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You say: "we all knew about it" ["that a certain group of editors would disrupt the project to get their way in their own little kingdom"]. What exactly "group" are you talking about and who are "we"? If by "we" you mean everyone at least occasionally active in this subject area, this is plainly not true. For example, I did not know it. I do know the people involved (as on-wiki contributors, not in real life), but I would not define them as a group, and I certainly do not think that they "disrupt the project to get their way". You apparently only mean yourself but say "we". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

By "group" I mean the slightly less than a dozen regulars in that topic area. Do you consider yourself a member of that group? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of any groups of "distortionists" who "disrupt the project to get their way", at least in this subject area, and I can not be a member of something that does not exist. I believe your claims belong to WP:ABF, possibly WP:ASPERSIONS, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I never said the disruption was limited to one side of the argument. If you're going to quote me do so accurately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hunting in the United States

Hello, I can't beleive this didn't already exist; this could be worked into a FA. I would have no idea where to find the info, but the history section could also probably be its own article. Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah wild that it didn't... I was originally going to work on a page for another country and went "I bet the US one is well done, let me see how its set up" and was shocked to find out this didn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA

It may not be obvious to you, and you may not have intended it, but this[4] actually does run afoul of WP:NPA. The problem is that you can't assume what another user does or does not know. With a bit of focus, one can find ways to say things without doing that. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to be specific, exactly what part of the linked diff runs afoul of exactly what part of NPA (quotes please). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, in my distraction I grabbed the wrong diff. This[5] is the one. The sentence "You need to actually know what you're linking to rather than just using the words that sound right." One can't assume what another user does or does not know. Nor can one infer motivation for an action ("using the words that sound right"). Even if one thinks one has evidence to suggest that it's the case, one should still avoid saying it. One can say something like "what you describe doesn't fit policy XYZ". Now you're on solid ground. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

And where in NPA is this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDYOU. I think the most succinct statement of what to avoid "don't infer anything about the other user's state of mind." What you wrote is definitely far from the worst personal attack, but it does run afoul of the policy, at least arguably, and it's not the kind of evidence you want to leave around, in case you get into a dispute with someone. It's a good idea to avoid even arguable infractions of that policy; there is simply no benefit in doing otherwise. Look, as a general matter, I enjoy interacting with you, and I'm trying to be helpful here, even though I realize it's unpleasant. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You need to actually show the policy it runs afoul of if you're going to make that claim. AVOIDYOU doesn't mention inferring or other user's state of mind at all. If it arguably runs afoul of the policy you're actually going to have to make that argument, you haven't yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't appreciate sore losers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Not entirely sure what you mean but it sounds a bit WP:BATTLE-like. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't appreciate it when someone posts an edit warring warning on my talk page because they've both hit the 3rr wall and can't get talk page consensus for their desired changes. It seems a little hypocritical to warn the other parties in an edit war you were the primary participant in, no? Especially when nobody has placed a warning on your talk page, were you going to template yourself? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No need, but you have an interesting view of editing whereby it's some kind of revert war around a "wall". Problematic. Bon courage (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Kindly continue this discussion at the appropriate noticeboard if that is what you wish. I would rather not be baited in my own home. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)