User talk:Dr vulpes: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 202: Line 202:

”'[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style=”background:#4B0082; color:white;”>Dr vulpes</span>]]”’ [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 04:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

”'[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style=”background:#4B0082; color:white;”>Dr vulpes</span>]]”’ [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 04:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the open discussion. ~1500 citation record per year for 4-5 years, which luckily is only going to continue, to me counts as a “significant impact”. I haven’t seen your publication record, but I for one would not be against it. There are several examples that I’ve created [[David Sherman (psychologist)]], [[Himan Shahabi]] (from the same field) etc. So are we going to discredit all these claims solely because they rely on Google Scholar? [[WP:PROF]] does not prohibit the use of [[Google Scholar|G Scholar]] or [[H-index]] as an RS for WP:NPROF#C1. It only cites caution and it’s fair to say that its usage is pretty standard procedure. [[User:Xpander|Xpander]] ([[User talk:Xpander|talk]]) 08:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the open discussion. ~1500 citation record per year for 4-5 years, which is only going to continue, to me counts as a “significant impact”. I haven’t seen your publication record, but I for one would not be against it. are several examples that I’ve created [[David Sherman (psychologist)]], [[Himan Shahabi]] (from the same field) etc. So are we going to discredit all these claims solely because they rely on Google Scholar? [[WP:PROF]] does not prohibit the use of [[Google Scholar|G Scholar]] or [[H-index]] as an RS for WP:NPROF#C1. It only cites caution and it’s fair to say that its usage is pretty standard procedure. [[User:Xpander|Xpander]] ([[User talk:Xpander|talk]]) 08:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

== Question ==

== Question ==

Admins, if I’ve done an admin action that you disagree with feel free to make any adjustment to it that you feel is appropriate.

I’m not sure if you’re aware, but editors are allowed to blank most content from their own talk page. In this case the content, other than the declined appeal, should not have been restored.– Ponyobons mots 21:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up @Ponyo, looking back I misread the page that got blanked and thought it was someone else’s. Kind of getting back into the groove after the car accident, I’ll be more careful going forward. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something like that. If someone were to make a list of everything an editor could get wrong on this site, that edit would fall very near the bottom, so no worries there. Hope you’re feeling better soon!– Ponyobons mots 23:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m very sorry to hear about your car accident and wish you a speedy recovery.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Vulpes, My name is Dr Roussel De Carvalho and I have done the genealogy of the Cerqueira Lima family of Brazil. All academic articles and other books get the timeline wrong about Jose de Cerqueira Lima. The slave trade was initiater by his father who was portuguese – Jose Cerqueira Lima, married to Maria Vitoria Vasconcelos e Sousa. You can find the entire genealogy on family search (see link below). On The slave trade website where you can find the atlantic voyages, you will find ships before 1812 belonging to Jose Cerqueira Lima and the after 1812 belonging to his son who took over his father’s business. Flux et reflux and other books do not understand the genealogy and timeline of the Cerqueira Lima family in Bahia and are incorrect.

I found this person on FamilySearch:

José de Cerqueira Lima

https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/KNY5-JC1 ~2025-33700-79 (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for closing the talk discussion today. Sorry to hear about your car accident. It seems like your closure is not consistent with our article title. Either the closure is wrong or the title is wrong. They cannot both be correct. What to do? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Anythingyouwant, maybe I missed something or just got too tunnel visioned with the request at hand. That kind of happens when I’m working on CT article. Wasn’t this close asking about changing the wording around the forth sentence in the lead of the article from The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the… into The genocide has been recognised by consensus amongst experts, a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the…
Sorry if this is on me the pills have made me a little wonky, part way though I did go and lay down for a bit so this being my mistake is completely possible. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I hope you are OK; secondly, not seeing any issue with the close. There was a sentence or two I had to read twice and was thinking “how does this fit into the paragraph and what is it trying to say”, but then I applied car-crash context and it made sense to me (there is a point, it might not necessarily connect with the structure of the paragraph, but it is still a point). I’m also seriously hungover, so if I can make sense of it, most editors should be able to also. Whether they agree, well, that’s a different story. Take care, CNC (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dr vulpes for the closure. It was justified. There was no consensus among the Wikipedians, and there was no consensus among the researchers. Be well, recover quickly and take care. The best, Dgw|Talk 15:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not objecting to the close. I’m just baffled as to why it’s okay for the article title to allege a genocide if there’s no consensus amongst experts that there is a genocide. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the wording is too wide. “consensus amongst experts”, what experts? experts in what? who said these experts came to a consensus? For example you’ll find people in warfare studies say it’s not a genocide but then you’ll find genocide researchers saying it is. If the wording had been tweaked a bit to say something like “consensus amongst genocide researchers” then it would be narrow enough to not run into this issue. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe John Spencer (military officer) is a very good source. See the section in his article “Opinions on Israeli invasion of Gaza”. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was using them as an illustrative point that different fields of study hold differing views. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vulpes, thanks for the reply. Assuming you’re entirely correct, then it would seem the article title is too broad, as it implies that both genocide researchers and also warfare experts (and experts in general) have reached consensus that it’s genocide. Anyway, the dispute seems to be just as much a question of fact as a a matter of definition, and anyone is entitled to posit a definition. To the extent genocide is defined as a crime, then governmental institutions are the experts, including the International Court of Justice, and many governments are deliberately withholding their conclusion pending a decision by the ICJ; that again indicates our article title is not neutral (and is contrary to the presumption of innocence required by WP:BLP). Click on “show” to see some key statements in this regard (cites can be found at Gaza genocide recognition):

Governmental statements saying it’s premature to make any definitive statement re. alleged Gaza genocide

  • Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said that “Israel will be judged in the international courts” and that “the position we’ve always taken as a country is that questions relating to genocide are matters where we respect the independence of international courts and tribunals and their role in upholding international law”.
  • Austrian Foreign minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger said in July 2025 that she “think[s] one should be very careful with the term ‘genocide’ and it will ultimately be the [International Court of Justice] that has to judge it”.
  • Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said that the claim of genocide was “something for the International Court of Justice to determine”.
  • Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Minister Melanie Joly neither endorsed nor rejected South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. Joly said she would watch the case “very closely” and Global Affairs Canada promised to abide by any decision the court reaches.
  • Danish Foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen refrained from accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, saying that it was a matter for courts to decide.
  • When asked why the Finnish government doesn’t officially say whether there was a genocide in Gaza, Foreign Minister Valtonen responded that they would leave the final judgments to the ICJ.
  • French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot responded to a direct question on France’s position on whether a genocide is happening in Gaza by stating that the government “has no position to take on the legal description of the facts,” and that it is “up to the international courts” to do so.
  • Iceland’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir stated in September 2025 that ultimately “it is for the International Court of Justice to decide this.”
  • In January 2024, Luxembourg’s Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel said the country would remain neutral and wait for the results of the proceedings in the case.
  • Dutch Foreign Minister David van Weel said that the Netherlands would not support the UN report that described the situation in the Gaza Strip as genocide and would instead wait for the ICJ’s decision.
  • New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters said: “We’re interested in what the international courts might say, and that’s what we would wait for.”
  • On 2 September 2024, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said, “We welcome the use of the ICJ, but leave to the court to assess whether the accusation of genocide is correct.”
  • In a statement published on 22 September 2025, Singapore’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan and Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Sim Ann acknowledged that the matter was being investigated by the ICJ, which they referred to as “the appropriate forum to adjudicate such grave concerns.”
  • Sweden’s Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard commented in September 2025 that the Swedish government would “await the assessments from an international court before we establish that it is a matter of genocide.”

I’m not sure what to do about this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m confused by your closure. You correctly point out that weak sources were used to support the statement but then you also admit that there exist peer-reviewed academic sources (both from the Journal of Genocide Research) that satisfy the requirement of WP:RSAC (“reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view”). Just because someone in the RfC presented weak sources should not be cause to dismiss the stronger sources. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vice regent see the reply to @Anythingyouwant above. I think it’ll answer your question. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that comment. But the bigger point is this: if multiple peer-reviewed academic publications assert “there is consensus for X”, not a single academic publication says “there is no consensus for/there is consensus against X” but a handful of individual sources say “I disagree with X”, should we disregard those peer-reviewed publications?
    For example, if multiple academic sources say “there is scientific consensus humans are causing climate change”, not a single academic study asserts scientific consensus is otherwise, but a few scientists do say “we don’t think humans are causing climate change” then is it enough for wikipedia to disregard the academic sources? I would think not.VR (Please ping on reply) 11:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The December 2025 administrator elections are set to proceed.
    • We plan to use the following schedule:
      • Nov 25 – Dec 1: Candidate sign-up
      • Dec 4 – Dec 8: Discussion phase
      • Dec 9 – Dec 15: SecurePoll voting phase
    • If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Dr vulpes,

    I’m a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

    While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn’t able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

    If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

    Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

    If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard.

    Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Bushranger got em 🙂 KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear @Dr vulpes. Regarding the verdict on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolfazl Jaafari. I don’t think the conclusion reflected the consensus correctly.

    We already had a discussion at WPT:Consensus#Admins will not decide content issues authoritatively? and there it was suggested that in such cases, “no consensus” would reflect the consensus more closely. Xpander (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So @Xpander what I did was I closed the discussion based on the discussions took place at the AfD. I didn’t decided something based on the content or my own opinion. I did include a bit of my thought process as to how I came to take conclusion but that is not me injecting my own views or opinion to overrule other editors. If you look at my other closes (recent example) you’ll see that I do that often. Here I’ve broken down the a table of who used what policy. I’m going to ignore all attempts to use WP:AUTHOR #1 for notability in this AfD analysis because that is for creative professionals and the topic is not a creative professional. I will assume it’s use was a misunderstanding. The real crux of this AfD is WP:NACADEMIC #1. Does a high citation count qualify someone to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1? The answer is no, read the policy “The person’s research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.”. You have tried to push this narrative that they’re this significant academic but citation count is not “demonstrated by independent reliable sources”. (Not to toot my own horn but if the citation record of Abolfazl Jaafari is the bar for WP:NACADEMIC #1 then I would be pretty close to an article on myself). This point was brought up in detail by UndercoverClassicist, Bearian also noted that they seemed very junior to pass notability. That’s what I used for that AfD based on the strength of the arguments and adherence to policy. Also Agnieszka653 mentioned this and your reply was to cite another unrelated policy.
    You’re not a bad editor or content creator, I think it’s kind of a waste of time pushing for a no consensus on a pretty well thought out month long delete discussion. But you are more than welcome to have this looked at over at review and it’s completely possible I’m wrong, and you know what? That’s a-ok! It happens to the best of us and I’ll openly admit this was not a slam dunk but I did my best to follow the discussion and apply policy. I hope you don’t view this as me trying to be mean or a jerk to you. Context often gets lost online so please know that I do respect the time and work you’ve put in to all of this.
    User Vote Reason Note
    ZyphorianNexus Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC Nominator
    Xpander Keep WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #4 and WP:AUTHOR #1 Author
    Bearian Comment
    Agnieszka653 Delete Tenure
    Ldm1954 Speedy Keep WP:NPROF#C1 based on publication record
    Metallurgist Delete “Junk”
    UndercoverClassicist Delete WP:NPROF #1
    Kelob2678 Keep WP:NPROF #1 based on publication record

    Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the open discussion. ~1500 citation record per year for 4-5 years straight, which is luckily only going to continue, to me counts as a “significant impact”. I haven’t seen your publication record, but I for one would not be against it. In fact there are several examples that I’ve created David Sherman (psychologist), Himan Shahabi (from the same field) etc. So are we going to discredit all these claims solely because they rely on Google Scholar? WP:PROF does not prohibit the use of G Scholar or H-index as an RS for WP:NPROF#C1. It only cites caution and it’s fair to say that its usage is pretty standard procedure. Xpander (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved here by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [1][reply]

    Thanks @IOHANNVSVERVS, if you want to add that to the template then go ahead. You seemed interested in it 🙂 Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, BBC (says BBC news is a trusted WP source) published the article “At least 94 Palestinians died in Israeli prisons in two years, human rights group says” covering a study by: Quote … a well-regarded Israeli human rights group /Close quote that should go into the Gaza Genocide article.
    No idea where to put the inclusion request, the ‘Talk’ page has a link that seems to go to the ether. THNX ~2025-34736-08 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crreg2l7kezo ~2025-34736-08 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Must Read

    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Exit mobile version