User talk:Herzen

Archives

/Archive 1/Archive 2

Just to let you know that I've followed the talk page (although I've been bogged down in other articles). It's good to see that you're taking to the learning curve like a fish to water. It's difficult to get a grasp of policy and how to adhere to it (particularly when it counters your own intuitive perceptions as to bias in the media, as well as jumping into the deep end by editing controversial articles), but you're doing well. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: LOL. Thank you. Wikipedia sometimes gets criticized, but I do think the rules are rational and well thought out, given that it is written by anonymous editors who are not expected to be experts. When there is a civil war international conflict going on, people are going to tend to be vociferous in advocating for the side they sympathize with, so it is nice to see that there are many editors who make an effort to collaborate with other editors who have a different, perhaps even "opposite", POV. In this way, Wikipedia can perhaps contribute in a small way to mutual understanding between the different people's of the world. (Jesus, I sound like a Soviet internationalist! But really, my background is White Russian.) – Herzen (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Russian with a streak of red probably makes you a pinko. That's a combo worthy of a bit of an inner conflict. I hope you don't beat yourself up about it... I mean literally, don't beat yourself up over it! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: No inner conflict. I have always been a social democrat along the lines of Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt, so I never identified with the Red or the White side. White Russians began losing their antipathy to the Soviets when Perestroika began, and lost it entirely when Russia stopped being communist. The rapprochement between White and Red Russians became final with the current Ukrainian crisis, with Russia once more under attack by the West, as it had come under attack before from Napoleon and then Hitler. – Herzen (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Western media and I are natural enemies. I'm grateful for the fact of Wikipedia's meticulously thought out and carefully developed policies & guidelines, even if it means that I have to adhere to upholding RS antithetical to my own POV. Personally, I wouldn't touch current affairs articles here except for the fact that the inevitable happened in Ukraine, and I just got caught up in trying to maintain some form of balance despite myself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: I am not that bothered by Western media. They just serve their function. Sure, Western media have a POV I don't share, but the reason that that POV is highly dominant in politically sensitive articles is that some editors game the system to keep other POVs out. And many of these editors are acting in good faith as far as I can tell: they actually believe that they know the truth, because they believe what the Western media tells them. To hazard a guess, I would say that the underlying problem here is that Western schools and universities don't teach critical thinking skills anymore. – Herzen (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me started on the decline of the Western education system because I'm likely to implode. That's another reason I support the Wikipedia project: students are encouraged to participate and end up being exposed to critical thought processes as a fringe benefit. I get a buzz out of mentoring younger POVers and watching their perception open to that which they'd never have been exposed to otherwise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: Give him a break, please! Well, we must distinguish between what are the Education systems and the media between the West and the East (either if they're Russians, Turks, Arabs, Indians, Chinese, Japanese or Southeast Asians, etc)... I think the West wasn't always correct! (I've been in Vietnam myself, and I can tell you that... Vietnam is not any nightmare at all). The several wikipedias, which I already have told, are naturally, conditioned, in a way, by the cultural framework in which they're written. We may rely on what we consider to be the reliable sources, but I ask myself, in such a delicate situation, for instance: would I trust more the New York Times, or Edward Snowden!... I could be wrong, but I'd trust more Edward Snowden!... Sorry for this thought. But, yes, concerning to Amnesty Internation, no doubt, for me! Russia involved (which doesn't mean, for me, USA or Germany not involved!) Mondolkiri1 (User talk:Mondolkiri1) 23:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) 00:59, 24 October 2014 (London/Lisbon/Casablanca Time)[reply]

@Mondolkiri1: Goodness, I didn't see this ping from you! You've misunderstood my response here: I'm in absolute agreement on the matter. I've been at the epicentre of watching the Australian tertiary system being dismantled by the overlaying of US corporate methodologies for the running of universities over the last 20 years or so. The tradition of their being a venue for the broadening of the upcoming intelligentsia's formation into politically, socially and culturally aware and well-rounded human beings has been crushed. The only accountability being nurtured now is that of hedonism and social isolation. The only 'value' being placed on education is the churning out of workers with credentials compatible with what the market forces are demanding... and the corporate 'marketplace' for workers in any area is as fickle and unpredictable as the world's capitalist economy itself is. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: Oh, I'm sorry for that in Australia. I hope that in a few countries in Europe (probably the Nordic countries), and New Zealand, along with other developed countries that are not Western (like Japan, South Korea, so on) that old Australian tradition still is in place. Following my thoughts concerning to what I was saying, I wouldn't think that the Chinese media is reliable enough, either, though that would also apply to the Anglo-Saxonic media. I've actually seen more regularly the France24, for a long time, as I said to RGloucester, and the Portuguese and Spanish-speaking information about these particular Eastern European events have also been more balanced, in my opinion, than the Anglo-Saxonic media (but being my opinion doesn't mean that it's true, since I live in a Latin country, with a lot of Ukrainians, but quite more suspicious about the standard American views than most Northern European countries). As I also said previously, my main concern about what's happening in Donbass is about the people who live in Donbass, and all the other interests, for me are either secondary or rubish. I thank you a lot for your reply! I wished that these articles about the events in Ukraine, in several languages, would be more consistent with each other, but that isn't what I've noticed, most noticeably between the Spanish and English Wikipedia, but that, as I said, has to do with cultural views. RGloucester said to me that the differences were because he's more bold about it because he has a strong feeling about what is right and wrong. And I answered: yes, I also have a strong feeling about what it is right and wrong but maybe our perceptions are a bit different given that I also watch and read non-English news about the issue. And I mentioned France24, and the conversation stopped there, so far. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: Have you seen this: The Hypocritically Arrogant and Ignorant Comments Against Anna Netrebko? According to that post, Netrebko is a Kuban Cossack. – Herzen (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't read it, but I have now. There's a thread on the NPOVN started by Darouet, the underlying issue being the overstepping of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS to be found here. It's not going to go far under its current title, but the number of current affairs articles being bogged down in yellowpress catch-cries and undue content is disconcerting. There have been numerous, lengthy debates on this board, the RSN, and article talk pages themselves that show up the essay on the globalization as the lipservice farce that it is. I believe that an all-encompassing discussion at NPOVN needs to be started... but this requires thinking out an approach that is concise and not easily dismissed by a large number of editors who are of the conviction that Western sources are sacrosanct. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: I don't know what to do about that "stealth invasion" thing. Maybe I'll try to chime in, if I can force myself to read the article and the sources.

But speaking of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, I ran across a very interesting article today: ЮГО-ВОСТОК: что было и как будет (Google translation). This is the first piece I have seen that gives an overview of how events unfolded since February. Do you think Wikipedia could use this in some way? Of course, I can already hear people saying that this is not a reliable source. But other sources can be found for the claims made. The virtue of the article is that it gives a bird's eye view of how events in the southeast unfolded. – Herzen (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Please don't post the google translation versions for me! What a train wreck! I finally found a moment to read it (in the original Russian) and, yes, in one sense such an overview is a good example of how to build articles that are succinct and provide a broader political and historical context, and something of a 'how to' to base a massive overhaul of articles obsessing over WP:RECENTISM and choking the life out of any prospect of elucidating, encyclopaedic information and presentation of the issues at stake.

Simultaneously, I don't consider this to be the ultimate prototype, but it certainly gives form to the issues. We both know that there is more than one take on the context, therefore a polished reading of the contexts are an imperative for cleaning up the atrocious mess of POV articles that have taken on a life of their own (depending on the POV of the clique who've cornered each article). I do have definitive understandings of the massive mistakes made in the dissolution of the Soviet Union (read as a field day for oligarchs and politicians waving their own nationalist flag stuff), but I'm caught up in IRL issues. Suffice it to say that I wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring this discussion. I need a little more time in which to think out some sort of solutions and formulate a better outline for discussing the issues at hand.

I'll get back to you ASAP. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you for your new thank you! And a Merry Christmas to you, although you Aussies are well into Boxing Day… – Herzen (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Herzen. Happy Boxing Day to you: I'm assuming that, by the time you read this, it'll be the 26th. Another POV pusher down, twenty-five million to go (and another one born every second). Ain't life grand! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As an American, perhaps you are better suited to dealing with this matter. I simply don't understand what's going on at that article. I guess that's the way canards work. They seep into the facts and twist them. I'm still flabbergasted that I was tricked by the purpose of that article. It is absurd. I strongly identify with the Frankfurt School in many respects, so it doesn't bode well for me, that's all. The article is a joke. It quotes theories and places them under the label of "cultural Marxism", without any sources describing them as such. And then, of course, we have the idiocy of "multicultural Marxism" and "political correctness" that some editors have tried to inject, which I'm fairly certain are antithetical to everything Marx stood for. Nothing about Adorno, Benjamin, or whoever had anything to do with "political correctness". In fact, if any of these rightist loons took the time to actually read their work, they might identify with the way that Benjamin stands up for the "aura of the work of art", and the idea that the "culture industry" manufactures "culture". RGloucester — ☎ 18:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: My being an American doesn't mean that I understand American rightist loons better than anyone else. I have enough trouble trying to understand where middle of the road Americans, American libertarians, mainstream Germans, Slavophile Russians, and left-wing Russians are coming from. (I have no trouble understanding left-wing Westerners or Eurasianist Russians, since I consider myself to be both.) As for the Frankfurt School, I consider it to be part of my "cultural heritage", but I don't really identify with it. I got more into the later critical theory (Habermas) than Horkheimer and Adorno. (For some reason, you mention Adorno and Benjamin, but never mention Marcuse. By the way, if I recall correctly, the bête noire of the Straussian intellectial fraud Allan Bloom was Marcuse.) Also, when it comes to analyzing late capitalism, I find Baudrillard to be more helpful than Horkheimer and Adorno.

The "cultural Marxism" article is prima facie rightist looniness because it was created by someone whose Talk page is littered with the topics of abortion and "homosexuality". I read the article through to the "Use by 21st century US conservatives" section. The article appears to use two authorities to legitimize the term "cultural Marxism". One is a paper by Douglas Kellner; the other is a paper by William S. Lind. The first is problematic because it was never published; thus, it did not pass through peer review, and hence is not a reliable primary source. As for the second, I see three problems with it. (1) This paper appears in a book which, as far as I can tell from Googling, was never published. (2) Even if it had been published, it would not have been a scholarly work, and hence would not have been a reliable source. (3) The WP article claims that Lind is a historian, but he only has a Master's in history, so he is not really a historian. (Articles by Lind appeared in CounterPunch which I found to be highly informative. They dealt with 4GW, a topic I am interested in, since that is what the USG has unleashed on the Ukraine. Thus, it should be noted that Lind is an erudite American military type, not a loon.)

This article has no place in an encyclopedia, so I see it as my duty to help eliminate it. But I ask you to continue with your efforts in this regard, since you have much more experience with Wikipedia procedures than I. – Herzen (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a particular fan of Marcuse. Adorno, Horkheimer, and Benjamin are quite dear to me. As far as later stuff is concerned, I gravitate toward Althusser. I'm also of the opinion that the ideas of Derrida and Butler are natural extensions of Marxism, but that's another story for another day. As far as the article, I'm aware of everything you wrote. I was not at first, because I didn't take the time to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. However, I agree that it must be eliminated. The first place to start is removing all of the non-RS bunk. The second thing to do is get consensus for a merger. I fear I don't have the energy to counter a flood of rightist SPAs, however. RGloucester — ☎ 22:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derridi, Derrida, Da Da Da in some parts, Derrida is DADA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:61:e861:5235:fd62:573e:d79c:e536 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, no Marxist could ever support Russia. No Marxist could ever support a state that has a military, or that makes weapons, or that puts human lives at risk for the sake of material gain. No Marxist could support a state that leaves the vast majority of the rural population in abject poverty. No Marxist could support a state that puts ethnicity and language before humanity. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Let's leave Marx out of this. Marx was a failed left Hegelian, who came up with a totalizing ideology very useful for justifying suppression. The case for the Left supporting Russia is simple. After the USSR fell apart, the US began a program to impose neoliberalism universally and to destroy countries which did not fall into line. Russia has emerged as the main obstacle to US hegemony and the unipolar world order that the US wants to preserve indefinitely. Thus, not supporting Russia entails supporting Anglo-American imperialism and neoliberalism. Why would any "Marxist" want to support those? – Herzen (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the major obstacle to unchallenged US hegemony is China and not Russia. Second the notion that "supporting Russia" is supporting US hegemony or imperialism is roughly at level of Bush's "either you are with us or against us". Not to mention that plenty of foreign policy "blowbacks" and historical diasters are based on such a scheme. If you want to challenge US hegemony than challenge it with a better alternative rather than with clone or even worse version of it. Or let it implode from within. Note that all these systems justify their action by external threats, meaning having multipolar world with US, China, Russia and alike is likely to perpetuate a bad situation rather than fixing it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to choose solely between Putinist fascism and neoliberal imperialism, I'd choose neoliberal imperialism. Obviously, neither of these are favourable in my view. However, from a "lesser of two evils" perspective, Russia is purely indefensible. I strongly agree that the neoliberalisation campaign that the US, World Bank, and IMF have been waging since the late 80s is abhorrent. I agree that neoliberalism is the scourge of this world. However, a potentially much worse scourge would be the return of 20th century fascist cronyism, and that's what Putin represents. He takes all the worst parts of 20th century ideology, such as revanchism, nationalism, religious exclusionism, corporatism, nostalgic conservatism, and material expansionism, and combines them all into a disgusting pile of tripe. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Can you give me some references documenting that there is such a thing as "Putinist fascism", please? The idea that such a thing exists is loony Russophobia. Next thing I know, you are going to propose that the Putinism article (which I just found out about) be renamed to "Putinist fascism".

Seriously, since Putin has definitely left his imprint on Russia, when you say Putin is fascist, you say that today's Russia is fascist. That is a very serious accusation. Please back it up or stop going off on Russophobic rants. To consider just one of your claims: how does Russia engage in "religious exclusionism"? According to Russiapedia (but not, unsurprisingly, English Wikipedia, which is so infested with Russophobia that the Russophobia article has been renamed), "Four religions are official: Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism". How do you think Putin is going to change that, to make Orthodoxy the sole official religion? – Herzen (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Russophobia" would imply I have something against Russia, or maybe samovars. I don't. I do, however, hold Putin accountable for his actions. I'm stating my opinion, which requires no references. I see the tactics that Putin has used in his own country and elsewhere as emulations of a certain fascist idea, with a modern twist. Anyway, I strongly dislike masculinity, so I've been pre-programmed to hate his little shirtless escapades. RGloucester — ☎ 22:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Strongly dislike masculinity"? Masculinity is a significant part of human reality. Since you reject reality, I no longer find it puzzling that you believe that there is such a thing as "Putinist fascism". – Herzen (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "human reality". There is only the reality that we construct. If we choose to construct a bad reality, we must deal with the consequences of that choice. And, of course, there is always the option to construct a different reality, if we're willing to put in the effort. RGloucester — ☎ 23:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That we construct reality does not mean that that reality is not true in an objective sense. And by bashing Russia, you are working for the 0.01% to keep the people of the world who are not the super wealthy in chains. – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that there is no objective reality, but that's a different matter. Uh, are you kidding about this ".01 percent" rubbish? Do you think that the present nature of the Russian state structure isn't a money-obsessed, greed-based, grandiose nonsense? What about Putin's "little" palace on the Black Sea? RGloucester — ☎ 23:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putin made an important speech recently which the Anglophone press has trashed. I haven't watched it yet; I'll get back to you after I do. (That link btw is to the blog of a Dutchman who hates two things more than anything else: Atlanticism and Islamism.) – Herzen (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources/reading recommendations on Putin's Russia:

• Anna Politkovskaya: Russia under Putin
• http://www.economist.com/node/9682621
• http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/life-under-putin/
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7678874
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Rkom1RpKA CBC documentary
• http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/11/russian-march-draws-thousands-haters-2014114161437560714.html
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZcUsdARY6o AJE - documentary
• http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/10/russia-press-freedom-danger-20141016161557366314.html
• http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/10/russian-law-expands-control-over-information-20141015202855387180.html
• http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2014/07/andrei-piontkovsky-20147412038392980.html
• http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eastern-ukraine-could-become-a-new-russian-protectorate-a-990416.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhkmh (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

←== SaintAviator == User:SaintAviator Forum contribution on MH17 [1] transfered:

Agree Herzen, I mean I like WP in general, but its articles like this with sections like 'Causes' that bring WP down. What does not amaze me anymore is trying to get it unbiased and NPOV. It wont happen. People tend to want to keep what they wrote. Its WPs big failure. Thats one of the reasons people dont take some WP articles seriously and indeed WP itself. I dont know if it started out better or became this way. It is what it is, but definitely its these high stakes articles that are a fail. For instance trying to even closes down discussion of an important piece of evidence. What should happen in a NPOV article is mention there was no plume trail, videotaped to date. The second plane theory gets an airing. That sort of thing. Frankly its disturbing. SaintAviator lets talk 09:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem with Alexpl. Seems to like to control things. [2]. I reverted this, he took it off the talk page and put it here. I have warned him. Really, its poor behaviour. Do you know some good Mods SaintAviator lets talk 10:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintAviator: There are problems with more than one editor of the MH17 article. I agree with you that Alexpl should not have moved your comment to my Talk page (in violation of guidelines), but little actual harm was done. I'm more concerned about articles than what happens in Talk pages.

I don't know any mods. I didn't get into Wikipedia in a big way where I have to carefully interact with other users until this Ukraine crisis began.

I hope you will keep on watching the MH17 article! – Herzen (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made a comment in the RfC about putting a POV tag on the MH17 article. I got into an edit war, putting a POV back in, for which I was reported by a malicious user for violating a technicality. There are too many editors who are opposed to a POV tag being put on that article, so there's no point trying.
My principle reservation about the article has always been that it maintains the fiction that there is only one possibility of who downed the plane. The new "Criminal investigation" section, however clearly states that there are two theories/scenarios. I see that as significant progress.
The lead and the "Cause" section are still wildly unbalanced, unfortunately. I would much appreciate any effort you made to grapple with those problems. The Ukraine related articles have a tendency to mention discredited information on the grounds that it was once considered to be newsworthy; the MH17 article suffers from that in a major way. – Herzen (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mess, like Ghouta. Almost hopeless. But I will keep an eye on things. ;) SaintAviator lets talk 03:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintAviator: I see you're digging up references. I've tracked news stories about MH17 fairly closely, and tried to add them to this article when I found them to be noteworthy, so I don't think your putting forward sources (unless they are new, i.e., from the last few days) is going to be very productive. A main problem with the article as I see it is that it has an awful lot of speculation and narrating of hearsay all to the effect that the rebels shot the plane down with a Buk missile. So maybe what we should be doing now is going through the article with a fine tooth comb (I have to admit that I find it very hard to force myself to actually read the article; it is full of so much rubbish) to see what we can get removed. – Herzen (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes theres some OK sources with good info pointing to the second theory. I wonder if the others know what 'critical thinking' even is? SaintAviator lets talk 08:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintAviator: I doubt it. Are you referring to the discussion I had earlier with Iryna Harpy? Because I wrote above:

To hazard a guess, I would say that the underlying problem here is that Western schools and universities don't teach critical thinking skills anymore.

Editors here are very quick to pounce on "Russian propaganda", especially RT. Yet they seem to be completely unaware that they are being subjected to US propaganda. (I'm talking about the Western editors here, not the eastern European ones who feel that their people have been oppressed by Russia.) – Herzen (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it reads like that, like a 2nd rate newspaper, not an encyclopedia SaintAviator lets talk 08:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know you spoke to Iryna, I enjoy her scathing replies to transgressors. BTW IMHO Iryna Harpy is the funniest, smartest warmest fairest astute editor on WP. And I dont want anything Iryna ;) SaintAviator lets talk 08:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SCREEECH! Just flapping by to say hello, guys. I'm on my way to keep an eye out on this thread in order to keep this blog out of the article. Apparently, the academic who writes it is being conveniently elevated to an a world renowned 'expert' for the sake of POV. Incidentally, DYK that there is no evidence that harpies were house-trained? Off to drop some more pearls of wisdom, if needs be. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROARRRRRRRR. Herzen, good luck with it, you have good points, but not the numbers. Im just too busy for a huge war. I gave it a low yield try but ahhh to much emotion involved. SaintAviator lets talk 04:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintAviator: Well, thanks for trying. Drop by again sometime. Herzen (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. The US now has a Nuclear first strike policy. [3] I do admit to wanting WP to be not so US POV. SaintAviator lets talk 09:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herzen I just handed in a large body of study, so I have a little time now. I saw the latest MH 17 Talk Rfc. Im new to WP but its not too difficult to grasp. Im concerned about VM's behaviour. Is that normal? Is he an admin? It just seems so POV. Whats going on? BTW I just mentioned the US first strike policy to frame this article in context. SaintAviator lets talk 00:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've been here for almost a year, so you're not that new. As for VM's behavior, no, it's not normal, but unfortunately it's all too common in the Ukraine-related articles. To answer your question of what's going on, the fanatically pro-Kiev editors appear to suffer from a combination of inhabiting an alternate reality, only believing sources which are wildly Russophobic, and from a blind hatred of Russia. I just had to revert an edit that VM made to the New Russia Party in which VM insists on calling Alexander Dugin is a fascist, even though that is ridiculous. The basic problem is that some editors are so trapped in their Russophobia that they don't even realize that it's just a POV, but actually think it's the truth.

As for the new US first strike policy, yes, Washington has certainly gone totally crazy. The first strike policy is related to Washington's program to destroy Russia because unlike Yeltsin, Putin wants to maintain Russia's sovereignty, but good look bringing that up in any article. – Herzen (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintAviator: Since you brought up VM's behavior (no, he is not an admin), I thought I should make you aware that there currently is a discussion about him at ANI. (I found out about it because he brought it up on the MH17 Talk page, so I'm telling you this in case you missed VM's comment.) I was going to try not to get involved in this, but even though there currently is an ANI case against him, he is continuing the same behavior full speed ahead. – Herzen (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that. I might add something there. SaintAviator lets talk 07:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Since you claim to be an academic, I recommend that you read the following summary of a seminar on the current situation in Ukraine held by Canadian academics: Seminar at U of Ottawa: The challenge of reconciling Donbas and the Euromaidan movement in Ukraine. I hope that there is a chance that reading what academic specialists on Ukraine have to say will, at least in a small way, bring you into some kind of contact with the reality of what is happening in Ukraine, as opposed to where you are now, trapped in the absurd and racist anti-Russian propaganda – which you appear to assimilate wholesale, without the least indication of any ability to engage in critical thought – which is manufactured by the US/NATO. – Herzen (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to be "brought into some kind of contact with reality". I've been to similar seminars, and have heard many viewpoints on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 02:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've made essentially the same revert seven times in the past several days. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Please stop this slow edit war. If it continues I'll let you pick your sanction: a 48 hour block, a 2-month 0RR restriction on the article, or a 2-month topic ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And another problem is soapboxing, a policy you know about [12]. For example, such your edits: [13], [14], [15], [16] (there are more of them) can be viewed as "soapboxing" and WP:NPA problems, and be a reason for reporting you to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Herzen,

Not long ago you gave me an opportunity to express my view that while there is plenty about Russia to criticize, the same goes for the USA. I hope you do not mind too much that I make an unsolicited post to your talk page on this topic.

But as a single example (out of an alarmingly wide and large selection) of how truly and profundly screwed up the socalled civilized country of the USA is, I want to point your attention to this story:

School demonstrates 'active shooter' system

The USA does not have to fear that their country will be destroyed by 'the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot', they will manage that all by themselves.

I did live there for quite some time and I almost settled and started a family. And I am so happy that I left although I worry for all the good people I knew who remains there.

I just thought that you might like to know. Sincerely, Lklundin (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lklundin: Thank you for that. And that's in Massachusetts, perhaps the most liberal country in the nation. Apparently most Americans now think that school shootings are just one more unavoidable problem, like car accidents. (Even though the number of traffic accidents is reduced by requiring people to get driver's licenses, whereas no comparable regulation is done for firearms.)

Since you mention the RF, here is a good piece which explains Russia's main problems:

Russia’s Vulnerability to EU – US Sanctions and Military Encroachments

The main points have been made many times before: (1) Putin made Russia too dependent on energy exports, instead of developing Russia's manufacturing industry; (2) Putin's reaching an accommodation with oligarchs who stay out of politics severely limits the Russian state's room to maneuver. – Herzen (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you edits attempting to provide balanced view in articles about Ukraine and the ongoing conflict.Due to intensity of the discussion I started to avoid these subjects, but I watch them and saw your edits.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: Thank you. Yes, the discussion is pretty intense. And the bias just keeps on getting worse, not better. As you probably know, the Russophobia article was renamed to something with an anodyne name.

I agree with the sentiment you express on your user page. – Herzen (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Summary of dispute by Herzen" on WP:DRN is fine. It focuses on content, and only touches on behavior in a generic way in order to more clearly express your view of why the content is the way it is. Good job. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment. Yes, I do not support politics by the current administration. However, that does not make me unpatriotic. Quite the opposite, as should be clear from quotation of Adam Michnik on my user page ("Патриотизм определяется мерой стыда, который человек испытывает за преступления, совершенные от имени его народа"). My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: What do you know that 88% of Russians don't?

According to separate polling by Levada, Russians approving Putin’s performance have risen to an all-time high of 88%. …

Interpretation of the poll results over the past six months by Levada Centre analyst Alexei Grazhdankin suggests that Russian political sentiment was more skeptical of Putin’s performance in managing the conflict in eastern Ukraine than it has become, after the US demonstrated its target is the overthrow of the Russian leadership and of Putin himself. Western media attacks on Putin, the US targeting of Putin’s “cronies”, and attempts to isolate or humiliate Putin at international meetings like the G20 summit are all backfiring, according to the pollster.

I guess you want the US to do with Russia what it did with Ukraine, and overthrow Putin with a Russian Maidan/coup? – Herzen (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I don't think he's obligated to agree with "88%" of Russians, and regardless, speaking the Russian language doesn't mean that one automatically adores how a certain country carries itself. Leave him alone. RGloucester — ☎ 22:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about overthrowing Putin except his cronies? Nothing will change for the best if he disappears. This is not Ukraine. The country is ruled by siloviks. Putin is only a pawn. As about great conspiracy by the West, this is nothing new. BTW, if you think that US wants to destroy Russia (no, it does not), then their best strategy would be to keep Putin in power as long as possible. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Do you deny that there are many liberal holdovers from the Yeltsin years in powerful positions? It's not just siloviki who rule Russia. And it is not as if the oligarchs have completely lost their influence over the government. – Herzen (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who you are talking about, but everyone knows about top power brokers in Kremlin (see here, for example). And it seems that Putin is no longer an asset, but a liability even for them...My very best wishes (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Thank you for that link. Interesting interview. Putin's address to the Federal Assembly was a disappointment, so I am now more open to points of view of the opposition than I was a week ago. An example of who I had in mind by liberals in the government is the director of the central bank. – Herzen (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For possible future reference, here is the interview in Russian: Ольга Романова: «В России идет клановая война». (The English translation is hard to understand in at least one place.) – Herzen (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck!. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Donetsk People's Republic. I have started a discussion at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#How many infoboxes the article should have, and which one should it be. Please could you stop making reverts and contribute to the discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[17] Protesters shout "Heil Rudolf Hess Hitler Youth, SS" police doesn't react, people act normal like nothing is happening. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're such an hysterical schoolgirl, MyMoloboaccount. Seriously, get over your trolling YouTube, forums & blogs. A bunch of little boys trying to be 'in your face' are being ignored by everyone because they're being dicks. What do you expect? The police are going to beat the crap out of them, or that anyone is going to dignify their stupidity and 'feed the trolls'? Way to read subtext into a stupid non-event!

I've seen YT vids of young Russian thugs blathering about their fascist views, Polish hoons doing the same (plus carrying on like mad Russophobes: remember the European Cup?). Are those vids representative of the Russian or Polish community in general? Grow up and get over it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herzen.

I make a couple of very small edits recently to an article to add some time context to statements that were a bit general for their sources.

The edit after mine was larger, and was made by a user (Антон патріот) who apparently with some specific history on that page.

The next edit was yours, leaving the edit comment "(Undid revision 639780302 by Антон патріот (talk) You were told to stop reverting instead of raising your concerns in Talk.)"

Unfortunately, my small edit seems to have been removed along with the larger edit by Антон патріот.

Would you please take a look at it and help me understand if the removal of my small edit was intentional, and if so, why it was removed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: If I inadvertently wiped out some edits of yours, I'm sorry. But please fix the problem yourself. Антон патріот is now edit warring again, even though I reported him for that and he got blocked for 24 hours. I don't want to touch this article for the time being. – Herzen (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. And I understand that sometimes we editors will want to self-limit our editing on particular articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Herzen,

Please self-revert in this page. Otherwise, someone might wish to report you to WP:AE (see recent discussion here). Best, My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with that edit of mine? Somebody added a story from Ukraine Today about the head of the DPR saying that he saw how MH17 was shot down. All I did was look up the RIA Novosti story that the Ukraine Today story referred to, and add it as a reference. So all I did was verify the Ukraine Today story. Why should I self-revert that? If a Wikipedia article cites an article from one news source based upon an article from second news source, Wikipedia should cite that second news source. Do you dispute that? – Herzen (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion because I do not edit this page any longer (my last edit was dated December 7). So, if I understand correctly, you do not want to self-revert? My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer my question? Do you reject the idea that if a WP article cites one source which is based on an article from a second source, it is good practice for WP to cite the second source? That's all I did. Why should I self-revert that? – Herzen (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should self-revert simply because this page is under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom (you know about) and because you are currently engaged in edit war. Is not that a reason for you? My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate or qualify the following comments you made on Talk:Donetsk People's Republic?

• "The state called Ukraine is an utterly artificial construct... whereas Novorossiya is a region with a long history as part of Russia"
• "Ukraine's breaking away from the USSR is exactly equivalent to the DPR and LPR's breaking away from Ukraine"
• "Ukraine shows every sign of being a failed state, which means it is no more a country than Novorossiya is"

Do you understand these statements can be very easily seen as provocative of a new conflict and are not productive?--BoguSlav 02:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boguslavmandzyuk: Can you not understand that your endless arguing about the infobox is provocative and not productive? By the way, there is no such word as "Ukrainophobic". You are just advocating your Ukrainian nationalism without making the least bit of effort to restrain it for the purpose of collaborating with other editors to build an encyclopedia.

As for my three points you quote. Point (2) simply follows logically from the meaning of "breaking away". As you may recall, Ukraine's leaving the USSR was not legal under the constitution of the USSR. As for point (2), Ukraine appears to be collapsing, whereas Novorossia is a new state in its infancy. My point was that states in the process of collapse and states in their infancy have an equal right to being called a "country". As for point (1), here is another quote from theblog post by the US ambassador I gave the link to before:

The current territory of the Ukrainian state was assembled, not by Ukrainians themselves but by outsiders, and took its present form following the end of World War II. To think of it as a traditional or primordial whole is absurd. This applies a fortiori to the two most recent additions to Ukraine—that of some eastern portions of interwar Poland and Czechoslovakia, annexed by Stalin at the end of the war, and the largely Russian-speaking Crimea, which was transferred from the RSFSR well after the war, when Nikita Khrushchev controlled the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Since all constituent parts of the USSR were ruled from Moscow, it seemed at the time a paper transfer of no practical significance. (Even then, the city of Sevastopol, the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet, was subordinated directly to Moscow, not Kiev.) Up to then, the Crimea had been considered an integral part of Russia since Catherine “the Great” conquered it in the 18th century.

2. The lumping together of people with strikingly different historical experience and comfortable in different (though closely related) languages, underlies the current divisions.

Can you not understand that a "state [that] was assembled … by outsiders" from parts of other countries is artificial? Nothing I wrote should be difficult to understand. – Herzen (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, Herzen. You're really falling back into a pattern of making sweeping POV judgements as to the 'existence' of Ukrainians as an ethnic group with a strongly grounded history. Time to study your history again: much understanding of the nuances of cultural and ethnic history has been researched at length since the time of the Russian Empire. And you're complaining about Ukrainians with accounts displaying the Ukrainian flag? Your diatribe above speaks volumes for your 'neutrality' and understanding of a highly complex historical conundrum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please see WP:CIVIL with your personal attacks (Ukrainian nationalism). Secondly, Ukraine never "broke away" from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was officially dissolved by Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine in the Belavezha Accords. This is a mutually agreed-upon dissolution. This is not the case with DPR, which is foreign-funded insurgency. Third, the ethnic composition of Ukraine is overwhelmingly made of ethnic Ukrainians. It is a unitary state. The Russian federation is much more divided and diverse than Ukraine. If anyone was "lumped together", it was the Russia, not Ukraine. Do you truly believe all the stuff you've written about above?--BoguSlav 07:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Herzen,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined to be heard by the Committee. The arbitrators felt that they would rather see this issue brought to WP:AE for enforcement of the discretionary sanctions which are already authorised for the topic area. Please see the the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Long pop songs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 January 2015. 

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 

why you insert UKRAINE CLAIMS??????? humble user herzen help delete UKRAINE CLAIMS from article. it is CLAIMED BY UKRAINE and user marek is agent to into sources ukuraine-nato-USA alliance. i want help from respectful user molobo against user marek, but he is not into responding to my sources! remove UKRAINE CLAIMS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.235.243 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insert any Ukrainian claim. My last edit, which I guess you are referring to, merely corrected a citation that someone else added.

It is not worth fighting every inclusion of a Ukrainian claim. Ukraine is near collapse: see for example Ukraine's powerplants idled by lack of coal. When Ukraine collapses, the Ukraine POV-pushers here will become less active. – Herzen (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You should pick a user name and register. Especially when it comes to contentious topics such as the Ukrainian civil war, editors tend to be dismissive of IPs. (To me, the use of the personal pronoun "I" (which you should capitalize, btw) by an IP comes across as comical.) Also, I can tell from your IP that you go to Brown. So making edits as an IP actually leaves you with little privacy. – Herzen (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for help humble user herzen. account has to been creating. how to start remove ukraine claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossiyaCitizen22 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:Edit summaries only for summarizing your edit, not for general comment or to carry on disputes. Use the WP:Talk page for that. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For editing Wikipedia. Your opinions and activity are valued by me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to be interested in Ukraine-related articles. Perhaps you would like to participate in this discussion? Buzz105 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Herzen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

Hello, Herzen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Herzen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Films about Evangelicalism has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Films about evangelicalism. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]