Wikipedia is where liberal nerds go to slapfight, inconsistently using various rules to push their agendas. There is, for example, someone that spends a ton of her time fighting Nazi apologetics on Wikipedia that would otherwise still be there and she receives a lot of pushback. While her task is just, ask yourself why she needa to do it in the first place. Why is Wikipedia so friendly to Nazi apologetics? Why is it so hostile to corrections of it? Do you think the reasons might apply to other articles?
Wikipedia will mislead you on topics with more room for politics. It is fine if you want to use it to learn some math or something, but on anything social or political you should assume it has been written by someone sympathetic to Nazis and instead read books before forming any opinions.
Wheatcroft (who you have already cited) and Davies have some good overviews based on thr archives. Instead of using selected quotes provided by Wiki editors, I would recommend reading the source material. And then compare it, critically, to the intended message from Wikipedia.
Sure, it might have some contentious pages, but it does get edited by people who care enough. Just like the article you linked says.
And you said it yourself the source I used was fine. If I misinterpreted the quote or of there's more to the story you can clarify that and I'll correct myself.
Sure, it might have some contentious pages, but it does get edited by people who care enough. Just like the article you linked says.
Why does a page need to be contentious to be biased and misleading? As you yourself demonstrate in this thread, media literacy and criticism are not widely adopted.
I already asked you some simple challenging questions that addresses this. Can you think about answering it? Why didn't you already answer it? Why do you make me repeat myself?
And you said it yourself the source I used was fine.
I told you to read the actual books by Wheatcroft and Davies and suggested applying the mildest or critical thinking. Do you believe you are doing that right now or arw you being defensive and deflecting from critique?
If I misinterpreted the quote or of there's more to the story you can clarify that and I'll correct myself.
It seems you have missed the point entirely. Citing Wikipedia is like saying your mom you something once. Nobody has the onus of disproving what mommy told you. It is your job to actually study something before adopting the pretense that you understand it.
To do otherwise is arrogant and dishonest. And as we can see here, you are tryjng yo flip the onus and would like to believe you are right about what mommy yold you untio someone corrects you. Of course, as we have seen in this thread, when someone takes the time to do that, you respond in bad faith and deflect. All you're really doing is building stratagems for being lazy and wrong.
Are you surprised when you aren't taken seriously?
Citing Wikipedia is like saying your mom you something once
Not it's really not. And like you and I both said the numbers quoted aren't incorrect or come from a non-factual source. So saying this man killed a lot of people is not something incorrect. Regardless of your political ideologies or affiliations. So what critical thinking do you want me to employ here? Even if I read the book, what context would I be missing?
Someone else in this thread tried giving me the same message. Recommended a few books to me. One of them was written in the 30s so before a lot of the shit Stalin did. Another one literally backed up the numbers I quoted. So what are you and every other person in this thread arguing with me about here? Are you simply trying to tell me that wikipedia isn't reliable? I would disagree as
nothing you or anyone else has said has led me to believe that my understsnding of this topic is incorrect, but I'll leave you to your opinion in the matter. Just because you take issue with some articles that has millions of articles from a community built site does not delegtimize it in my eyes. Are you trying to tell me that Stalin did not cause a lot of deaths? That's not really an argument up for debate as its well documented that he was.
Yeah it really is. It has no academic rigor. This is why teachers don't let you cite it.
And like you and I both said the numbers quoted aren't incorrect or come from a non-factual source.
Actually I didn't say that and so far you haven't even responded to my comment on your numbers. I'm not going to repeat myself so if you want to discuss the numbers maybe you could deign to directly respond, O Great Wiki Warrior.
So saying this man killed a lot of people is not something incorrect.
Saying that Stalin killed a lot of people would be unanimously accepted by every person on this website and Wikipedia isn't how we know it lmao. We can all see the responses to you saying he killed lots of Nazis, for example, but you seem to be afraid of internalizing anything we say to you - or not saying silly things while being defensive.
Just try being honest. Kill the person in your head that says you can never admit fault. That person is a coward and full of shit and as you can see here, nobody likes them.
Regardless of your political ideologies or affiliations. So what critical thinking do you want me to employ here? Even if I read the book, what context would I be missing?
There is no mystery to what critical thinking I've asked of you. I asked you questions for you to yhink about two comments ago (that you ignored) and the comment you're trying to ignore is quite clear. I think you can figure it out. I'll help you out and repeat myself if you say, "sorry Barx, my bad. I went and triex to figure out what you meant by critical thinking and, shucks, I just couldn't do it! Can you help me please?"
Someone else in this thread tried giving me the same message. Recommended a few books to me.
Because you display ignorance. They are being nicer to you than you are to them. They, unlike you, actually do the reading. Unlike you, they don't rely on chickenshit rhetorical circles to avoid doing so.
One of them was written in the 30s so before a lot of the shit Stalin did.
That's not a reason not to read it. See what I mean by chickenshit? If anything something from the 30s will be favorable to anticommunism simply because the Soviet archives were not available. If you weren't deathly afraid of challenging yourself, you would learn that the archives largely contradicted Western exaggerations and guesses as well as Kruschevite antistalinism.
Another one literally backed up the numbers I quoted.
Did you read it? And for the third time, I've already replied to your numbers and you've not responded.
So what are you and every other person in this thread arguing with me about here?
I have been very clear. You can respond to what I say instead of pretending it's a mystery.
Are you simply trying to tell me that wikipedia isn't reliable?
What have I said about Wikipedia? Can you read it and tell me?
I would disagree as
nothing you or anyone else has said has led me to believe that my understsnding of this topic is incorrect
Yes, it is quite clear that you have made the propaganda you wish to believe unassailable. This is not because it is valid, but because you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and others. For example, pretending to not know my criticism of you using Wikipedia, ignoring 75% of what I say to you, and relying on blatantly absurd rhetoric.
but I'll leave you to your opinion in the mattyou
Difference being that I read the books while yoi skim Wikipedia to confuse yourself, so my opinions are correct and yours are propaganda.
Just because you take issue with some articles that has millions of articles from a community built site does not delegtimize it in my eyes.
The thing I told you to do is to read actual history books, including the ones you listed from Wikipedia despite not having read them, because Wikipedia is poisoned by, for example, Nazi apologetic debate perverts when it comes to social and political issues. You need to actually read critically, not just absorb whatever fits the bullshit you spent all of 10 minutes absorbing from others.
This is, apparently, too much for me to ask of you. God forbid you read a book or challenge the logic of a Wikipedia page. You might die in the process.
Are you trying to tell me that Stalin did not cause a lot of deaths? That's not really an argument up for debate as its well documented that he was.
You thought this was such a good zinger you said it twice lmao.
So hey, what about the 80% of my comment you didn't reply to? Why take up so much space saying silly nonsense instead of just replying to what I say?
I think I know the answet. But do you have the self-posession to say it?
Unironically, are you dyslexic? No shame if you are, it's just that you keep saying we say things we haven't said, and understanding why you do this would be helpful. If you're gonna have a discussion with people, please relate to what is actually being said, rather than what you would like had been said instead.
Someone else in this thread tried giving me the same message. Recommended a few books to me. One of them was written in the 30s so before a lot of the shit Stalin did.
I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, but at this point I've gone thru this with you enough times that you should know better by now. Let's look at what actually happened. I told you wikipedia wasn't useful. You asked what you should read instead. I gave you some good places to start for a basic education. I then made sure to make it very clear that no single source would every function as a panacea for ignorance:
There's no single place I can point you to though. Education isn't simple or easy, but being curious is. Not just taking everything you assume to be true for granted is important, and feverishly searching for keywords on wikipedia when your views get challenged is not the signs of someone with a solid intellectual foundation for their worldview. When you encounter heterodox opinions, take the time to consider that those that hold them have, like you, grown up in the same environment and so they've heard the same things you have. They do not think what you think because they haven't heard what you have heard. They think differently because they have heard what you have heard and then they decided to look into it. Be curious, be humble when you get challenged and if you have no basis for thinking what you're thinking, figure out why you think that. To quote a great man: "No investigation, no right to speak."
Now this is not the first time I tell you this, as my immediate response to you then was
I haven't made any claims towards a specific period, you asked for reading material and I presented some to you. Of this I gave you material that was an indepth detailing of the soviet gulag system up to world war 2, and several other pieces of reading material. You asked what you were supposed to read and I gave you some pointers, does your elevator not go all the way to the top or?
Yet you keep talking about this interaction as if what happened was that you made some statement like "Stalin ordered the death of 2.7 million people, of which less than half were wehrmacht soldiers. This is found in sources [1] [2] [3]" And I then came in and said "oh yeah, what about source X Y Z?" But that's not what happened. We've been begging you to specify your claims and source them, you fail continually.
On top of that you, for some reason, lend more credence to second hand sources rather than first hand sources, which is laughable. ON TOP OF THAT the only "source" you've posted was a pretty obvious asspull from a wikipedia article, where you didn't even have the common decency to admit that was what it was. It's pretty clear you're defensive and unwilling or incapable of engaging in civil discourse. You speak of civility as if it merely pertains to "not saying mean words" and not "not behaving like an absolute asshat".
You keep isolating statements from context and then go a step further to refer to those statements in the vaguest sense possible. "Declassified documents" became the 13th citation from a wikipedia article. Not trying to be creepy, but are you a child? Have you yet to learn critical thought? Academic analysis? Source critique?
Another one literally backed up the numbers I quoted.
What? You haven't quoted any numbers my guy. If you're talking about the 13th citation of a wikipedia article then I'm baffled. You were so deep in discussion at that point and, again, you're quoting a source speaking about a specific timeframe in a specific section of soviet society, while your statement that started this interaction was "stalin killed a lot more than CEOs". You're being incredibly unspecific, as it serves your agenda to be so. And still we treat you kindly and take you as seriously as it is possible. You keep asking questions you've gotten answered, yet you ignore. You then ask the same questions to different people, ignoring the answers you've already gotten. Rude, churlish, uncivil.
I haven't made any claims towards a specific period, you asked for reading material and I presented some to you. Of this I gave you material that was an indepth detailing of the soviet gulag system up to world war 2, and several other pieces of reading material. You asked what you were supposed to read and I gave you some pointers, does your elevator not go all the way to the top or?
Unironically, are you dyslexic? You keep saying we say things we haven't said. If you're gonna have a discussion with people, please relate to what is actually being said, rather than what you would like had been said instead.
I was referring to this part of the users comment where the user agreed it was an OK source.
Wheatcroft (who you have already cited) and Davies have some good overviews based on thr archives.
I told you wikipedia wasn't useful. You asked what you should read instead. I gave you some good places to start for a basic education.
And I actually took a brief look at them did I not? I didn't read every single book you gave me as I didn't have the time yesterday but I did take a look at some of them.
I then made sure to make it very clear that no single source would every function as a panacea for ignorance
I mean sure and I agreed with you on that but I also pointed out the sources irrelevance on the discussion of Stalins body count which is what we're actually discussing. I told you, it looked to be an interesting read based on the first few pages and some snippets I've read. And I'm sure I'll learn a lot by reading it, if I ever find the time to do so.
Blackshirts and reds looked go be a much more relevant source to discuss and I actually read a bit of it. Not all of it, admittedly, but enough to get an idea. So once again, thank you for giving me a reading list that hopefully I will actually have time to read one day. I never mentioned it but I did actually save your comment so I can have the list handy.
Yet you keep talking about this interaction as if what happened was that you made some statement like "Stalin ordered the death of 2.7 million people, of which less than half were wehrmacht soldiers. This is found in sources [1] [2] [3]" And I then came in and said "oh yeah, what about source X Y Z?"
Yeah and I looked at some of them. Like I've said repeatedly. I literally asked you for them and took a look. I wasnt being sarcastic or rhetorical when asking. I'm not against reading and learning new material so stop pushing that narrative. It's getting old.
On top of that you, for some reason, lend more credence to second hand sources rather than first hand sources, which is laughable. ON TOP OF THAT the only "source" you've posted was a pretty obvious asspull from a wikipedia article, where you didn't even have the common decency to admit that was what it was.
I never denied that. I admitted to it when you called me out on it here. I decided to use the direct source instead of just quoting wikipedia since you and so many other seemed to have an issue with the site. So I figured this would be more accepted by the majority of people here. I'm not ashamed to say the bulk of what I learned about the USSR and its history is from wikipedia. And I never pretended to be some expert on the topic. All I said was some off-handed comment on Stalin killing a lot more than CEOs which sparked this whole discussion. And when asked on where I learned it I openly said wikipedia. I never tried to hide or deny that fact.
What? You haven't quoted any numbers my guy
I was talking about this comment. I realize I wasn't replying to you but you stepped in and replied to it so I figured you'd know what I was talking about.
You're being incredibly unspecific, as it serves your agenda to be so.
I'm really not. I literally told you exactly where and how I got my understanding of Stalin and why I think the way I did. You said I should read alternate sources, so I asked what. You gave them to me. I took a look at them and said they're good reads but they don't exactly contradict what I was saying. You and others have mentioned that there was additional context that could be gleamed from reading these books and I never denied that. At most I said, to another user, that even after learning said context it wouldn't exactly invalidate my statement or change it.
No sort of serious review. Known to keep outright bad and highly (and intentionally) misleading material even after it is conclusively proven to be wrong. Have stuff like 'Radio Free [something]' listed as good sources.
The only stuff that you can trust Wikipedia on is math, basically, and even then only because they provide the proofs, and even then they also keep errors found in their sources with no notes on the matter.
Wikipedia.
Wikipedeez nuts
you may not be old enough to have heard this in school, so let me do it now:
wikipedia is NOT a reliable source.
alright cuh is loweffort trolling twas fun while it wasn't obvious
That was the most underwhelming ending to that gif. And you missed the opportunity to make it a 5 second countdown with that username.
Since we're talking numbers, do you have a negative number of braincells? Most of us don't make the emojis lib
What your shitposting isn't homemade?
Speaking as an outsider, what is your opinion on intelligence?
This needs to be a tag line. Lmao Wikipedia, fucking hell at least read a book first before embarrassing yourself
Tf is wrong with Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is where liberal nerds go to slapfight, inconsistently using various rules to push their agendas. There is, for example, someone that spends a ton of her time fighting Nazi apologetics on Wikipedia that would otherwise still be there and she receives a lot of pushback. While her task is just, ask yourself why she needa to do it in the first place. Why is Wikipedia so friendly to Nazi apologetics? Why is it so hostile to corrections of it? Do you think the reasons might apply to other articles?
Wikipedia will mislead you on topics with more room for politics. It is fine if you want to use it to learn some math or something, but on anything social or political you should assume it has been written by someone sympathetic to Nazis and instead read books before forming any opinions.
Wheatcroft (who you have already cited) and Davies have some good overviews based on thr archives. Instead of using selected quotes provided by Wiki editors, I would recommend reading the source material. And then compare it, critically, to the intended message from Wikipedia.
Sure, it might have some contentious pages, but it does get edited by people who care enough. Just like the article you linked says.
And you said it yourself the source I used was fine. If I misinterpreted the quote or of there's more to the story you can clarify that and I'll correct myself.
Why does a page need to be contentious to be biased and misleading? As you yourself demonstrate in this thread, media literacy and criticism are not widely adopted.
I already asked you some simple challenging questions that addresses this. Can you think about answering it? Why didn't you already answer it? Why do you make me repeat myself?
I told you to read the actual books by Wheatcroft and Davies and suggested applying the mildest or critical thinking. Do you believe you are doing that right now or arw you being defensive and deflecting from critique?
It seems you have missed the point entirely. Citing Wikipedia is like saying your mom you something once. Nobody has the onus of disproving what mommy told you. It is your job to actually study something before adopting the pretense that you understand it.
To do otherwise is arrogant and dishonest. And as we can see here, you are tryjng yo flip the onus and would like to believe you are right about what mommy yold you untio someone corrects you. Of course, as we have seen in this thread, when someone takes the time to do that, you respond in bad faith and deflect. All you're really doing is building stratagems for being lazy and wrong.
Are you surprised when you aren't taken seriously?
Not it's really not. And like you and I both said the numbers quoted aren't incorrect or come from a non-factual source. So saying this man killed a lot of people is not something incorrect. Regardless of your political ideologies or affiliations. So what critical thinking do you want me to employ here? Even if I read the book, what context would I be missing?
Someone else in this thread tried giving me the same message. Recommended a few books to me. One of them was written in the 30s so before a lot of the shit Stalin did. Another one literally backed up the numbers I quoted. So what are you and every other person in this thread arguing with me about here? Are you simply trying to tell me that wikipedia isn't reliable? I would disagree as nothing you or anyone else has said has led me to believe that my understsnding of this topic is incorrect, but I'll leave you to your opinion in the matter. Just because you take issue with some articles that has millions of articles from a community built site does not delegtimize it in my eyes. Are you trying to tell me that Stalin did not cause a lot of deaths? That's not really an argument up for debate as its well documented that he was.
Yeah it really is. It has no academic rigor. This is why teachers don't let you cite it.
Actually I didn't say that and so far you haven't even responded to my comment on your numbers. I'm not going to repeat myself so if you want to discuss the numbers maybe you could deign to directly respond, O Great Wiki Warrior.
Saying that Stalin killed a lot of people would be unanimously accepted by every person on this website and Wikipedia isn't how we know it lmao. We can all see the responses to you saying he killed lots of Nazis, for example, but you seem to be afraid of internalizing anything we say to you - or not saying silly things while being defensive.
Just try being honest. Kill the person in your head that says you can never admit fault. That person is a coward and full of shit and as you can see here, nobody likes them.
There is no mystery to what critical thinking I've asked of you. I asked you questions for you to yhink about two comments ago (that you ignored) and the comment you're trying to ignore is quite clear. I think you can figure it out. I'll help you out and repeat myself if you say, "sorry Barx, my bad. I went and triex to figure out what you meant by critical thinking and, shucks, I just couldn't do it! Can you help me please?"
Because you display ignorance. They are being nicer to you than you are to them. They, unlike you, actually do the reading. Unlike you, they don't rely on chickenshit rhetorical circles to avoid doing so.
That's not a reason not to read it. See what I mean by chickenshit? If anything something from the 30s will be favorable to anticommunism simply because the Soviet archives were not available. If you weren't deathly afraid of challenging yourself, you would learn that the archives largely contradicted Western exaggerations and guesses as well as Kruschevite antistalinism.
Did you read it? And for the third time, I've already replied to your numbers and you've not responded.
I have been very clear. You can respond to what I say instead of pretending it's a mystery.
What have I said about Wikipedia? Can you read it and tell me?
Yes, it is quite clear that you have made the propaganda you wish to believe unassailable. This is not because it is valid, but because you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and others. For example, pretending to not know my criticism of you using Wikipedia, ignoring 75% of what I say to you, and relying on blatantly absurd rhetoric.
Difference being that I read the books while yoi skim Wikipedia to confuse yourself, so my opinions are correct and yours are propaganda.
The thing I told you to do is to read actual history books, including the ones you listed from Wikipedia despite not having read them, because Wikipedia is poisoned by, for example, Nazi apologetic debate perverts when it comes to social and political issues. You need to actually read critically, not just absorb whatever fits the bullshit you spent all of 10 minutes absorbing from others.
This is, apparently, too much for me to ask of you. God forbid you read a book or challenge the logic of a Wikipedia page. You might die in the process.
You thought this was such a good zinger you said it twice lmao.
So hey, what about the 80% of my comment you didn't reply to? Why take up so much space saying silly nonsense instead of just replying to what I say?
I think I know the answet. But do you have the self-posession to say it?
Unironically, are you dyslexic? No shame if you are, it's just that you keep saying we say things we haven't said, and understanding why you do this would be helpful. If you're gonna have a discussion with people, please relate to what is actually being said, rather than what you would like had been said instead.
I don't know if you're doing this on purpose, but at this point I've gone thru this with you enough times that you should know better by now. Let's look at what actually happened. I told you wikipedia wasn't useful. You asked what you should read instead. I gave you some good places to start for a basic education. I then made sure to make it very clear that no single source would every function as a panacea for ignorance:
Now this is not the first time I tell you this, as my immediate response to you then was
Yet you keep talking about this interaction as if what happened was that you made some statement like "Stalin ordered the death of 2.7 million people, of which less than half were wehrmacht soldiers. This is found in sources [1] [2] [3]" And I then came in and said "oh yeah, what about source X Y Z?" But that's not what happened. We've been begging you to specify your claims and source them, you fail continually.
On top of that you, for some reason, lend more credence to second hand sources rather than first hand sources, which is laughable. ON TOP OF THAT the only "source" you've posted was a pretty obvious asspull from a wikipedia article, where you didn't even have the common decency to admit that was what it was. It's pretty clear you're defensive and unwilling or incapable of engaging in civil discourse. You speak of civility as if it merely pertains to "not saying mean words" and not "not behaving like an absolute asshat".
You keep isolating statements from context and then go a step further to refer to those statements in the vaguest sense possible. "Declassified documents" became the 13th citation from a wikipedia article. Not trying to be creepy, but are you a child? Have you yet to learn critical thought? Academic analysis? Source critique?
What? You haven't quoted any numbers my guy. If you're talking about the 13th citation of a wikipedia article then I'm baffled. You were so deep in discussion at that point and, again, you're quoting a source speaking about a specific timeframe in a specific section of soviet society, while your statement that started this interaction was "stalin killed a lot more than CEOs". You're being incredibly unspecific, as it serves your agenda to be so. And still we treat you kindly and take you as seriously as it is possible. You keep asking questions you've gotten answered, yet you ignore. You then ask the same questions to different people, ignoring the answers you've already gotten. Rude, churlish, uncivil.
I was referring to this part of the users comment where the user agreed it was an OK source.
And I actually took a brief look at them did I not? I didn't read every single book you gave me as I didn't have the time yesterday but I did take a look at some of them.
I mean sure and I agreed with you on that but I also pointed out the sources irrelevance on the discussion of Stalins body count which is what we're actually discussing. I told you, it looked to be an interesting read based on the first few pages and some snippets I've read. And I'm sure I'll learn a lot by reading it, if I ever find the time to do so.
Blackshirts and reds looked go be a much more relevant source to discuss and I actually read a bit of it. Not all of it, admittedly, but enough to get an idea. So once again, thank you for giving me a reading list that hopefully I will actually have time to read one day. I never mentioned it but I did actually save your comment so I can have the list handy.
Yeah and I looked at some of them. Like I've said repeatedly. I literally asked you for them and took a look. I wasnt being sarcastic or rhetorical when asking. I'm not against reading and learning new material so stop pushing that narrative. It's getting old.
I never denied that. I admitted to it when you called me out on it here. I decided to use the direct source instead of just quoting wikipedia since you and so many other seemed to have an issue with the site. So I figured this would be more accepted by the majority of people here. I'm not ashamed to say the bulk of what I learned about the USSR and its history is from wikipedia. And I never pretended to be some expert on the topic. All I said was some off-handed comment on Stalin killing a lot more than CEOs which sparked this whole discussion. And when asked on where I learned it I openly said wikipedia. I never tried to hide or deny that fact.
I was talking about this comment. I realize I wasn't replying to you but you stepped in and replied to it so I figured you'd know what I was talking about.
I'm really not. I literally told you exactly where and how I got my understanding of Stalin and why I think the way I did. You said I should read alternate sources, so I asked what. You gave them to me. I took a look at them and said they're good reads but they don't exactly contradict what I was saying. You and others have mentioned that there was additional context that could be gleamed from reading these books and I never denied that. At most I said, to another user, that even after learning said context it wouldn't exactly invalidate my statement or change it.
No sort of serious review. Known to keep outright bad and highly (and intentionally) misleading material even after it is conclusively proven to be wrong. Have stuff like 'Radio Free [something]' listed as good sources.
The only stuff that you can trust Wikipedia on is math, basically, and even then only because they provide the proofs, and even then they also keep errors found in their sources with no notes on the matter.
Removed by mod