Ashy Waves

Welcome!

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Ashy Waves, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I dream of horses, hello and thanks. I would like to figure out how to make my references look nicer, but I'll probably do that another day, perhaps over the weekend. Nice to meet you. Ashy Waves (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You might want to start with this helpful guide. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I dream of horses, thanks. That helped a lot. Ashy Waves (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Belgian Congo

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ashy Waves, thanks for your work on "The Belgian Congo". However, would it be possible to explain why you revert other editors edits. This seems to turn into an edit war, while there seems to be no real reason for it. Kind regards. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum The Belgians spread propaganda that they were improving healthcare and education, and while it is true that things were better under them than under King Leopold's rule, even the "improved" versions still resulted in significant depopulation. It was, in essence, a brutal forced labor regime, only mild in comparison to the previous forced labor regime. The material in the books by Jules Marchal is quite dense, so I am trying to add information bit by bit, but it is quite frustrating when you keep deleting my changes so I have to redo them. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please read the entire article at least. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum The article is riddled with inaccuracies. It would be impossible to correct them all at once. Jules Marchal is perhaps the best expert on the subject, certainly very well regarded, and he wrote volumes about forced labor and related issues in the Belgian Congo. Only two of his books were translated into English, unfortunately, and one of those in an abridged form. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum According to Adam Hochschild in the introduction he wrote for Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts, "[Jules Marchal's] contribution is an essential one. No other scholar, looking at any other part of Africa, has studied colonial forced labour as thoroughly as Marchal has in the Congo. A storyteller or a popular writer for a mass audience he is not, but as a researcher who knew how to find what was hidden in government and corporate documents he is unmatched. Marchal's 40 years in government service taught him how to uncover documents that writers of laudatory biographies and cheerful corporate histories have long ignored." Short of personally going through the primary source documents myself (assuming I could find and understand them), there is probably no better source of information about the Belgian Congo than Jules Marchal. So if you could please stop putting Belgian propaganda in there, that would be helpful, and I could focus on adding more details about the forced labour regime. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Belgians were and still are monsters. Hochschild is a hero and finally showed how the weak Congolese were abused by the evil Belgians. Men had to work all day and go find rubber and palm oil and gold and copper and many other resources so their children could eat. When they got home, they only had a few hours of sleep. Also the Belgians abused the poor Congolese all day. They were absolute monsters and the Congolese had to work until they died. All day and every day. Hochschild said these things so they are true. All other evidence is Belgian (aka 'evil') propaganda. Thank you for these insights, I was blind, but now I see.Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hochschild is a journalist, but other evidence is propaganda, only Hochschild knows the truth. Jules Marchal was a Belgian FYI and he wasn't an academic either, as he said himself "Alles wat ik schrijf is nieuw. Mijn boeken zijn gebaseerd op archieven die nooit door iemand zijn geconsulteerd, die nooit gebruikt zijn door andere historici."Jules Marchal over dwangarbeid in Kongo, Het Belang van Limburg, 23 maart 2002 Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sumNo, the men did not work "so their children could eat". They were forced to work threats of prison and the chicotte, a type of whip. This in fact prevented them from having time to grow their own food and lead to widespread starvation. In so far as these methods were milder than the mass killings and cuttings off of hands that took place under King Leopold, things were somewhat better. Specific Belgians did take the side of the natives, or at least advocate for better treatment, and many Belgian citizens were no doubt unaware of the sordid affair. However, on the whole, those Belgian officials who were in power treated the natives terribly. Since you are apparently unwilling to actually do proper research thus far, and feel the need to make strawman arguments to make yourself look better, please leave the article alone until you are in the mood to do proper research. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You started an edit war, as a new user on an article you have never worked on, and have only added info on one topic, in a general section of the article. It would have been possible to make a 'forced labour section', or find a good way to edit the article, based on consensus. But you chose differently. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum An edit war? I was trying to gradually correct the article and add further details, and you kept adding in inaccuracies over and over again faster than I could add new information so I kept getting these pages saying there was an edit conflict when I tried to add more stuff. If you don't want an "edit war" or whatever you call that, then stop repeatedly adding false information. In any case, I doubt I will ever find consensus with someone who writes off forced labor, enforced by prison and the whip, as simply men working all day so their children could eat, when in fact the labor prevented them from being able to properly feed their children. If you had taken the time to look at my references, perhaps you would not have made such a mistake, but instead you leaped to conclusions and falsely represented my views. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum To list your strawmans. 1. "The Belgians were and still are monsters." and "They were absolute monsters" The evidence shows that some Belgians - in particular Belgians who held power during that time period - perpetrated forced labor. Specific Belgians protested, either asking for better conditions for the natives or the abolition of forced labor entirely. Numerous Belgian citizens were doubtless unaware. 2. "Hochschild is a hero and finally showed how the weak Congolese were abused by the evil Belgians." Hochschild was hardly the first person to point this out. The Congo Reform Association, including such figures as E.D. Morel, was instrumental in exposing the brutalities of Leopold's regime. Hochschild was an excellent historian who went through much of the information left behind by the Congo Reform association and presented it in an easier to read format. Jules Marchal also pored over a great deal of primary source material relating to the Congo under King Leopold and the later Belgian government, information that was left thanks to the efforts of people such as Dr. Raingeard and others who were present at the time. 3. "Men had to work all day and go find rubber and palm oil and gold and copper and many other resources so their children could eat." No, not so that their children could eat, but to avoid prison and the chicotte (or worse during the time of King Leopold). This forced labour in fact resulted in widespread starvation. 4. "They were absolute monsters" The Belgians fell along a spectrum, some perpetrating awful abuses, some recommending a lessening of abuses, some opposing forced labour outright 5. "the Congolese had to work until they died" Some but not all Congolese were worked to death. 6. "All day and every day." Periods of forced labor varied. 7. "Hochschild said these things so they are true." There are a great number of primary sources cited by Jules Marchal and others. People who were actually there. 8. "All other evidence is Belgian (aka 'evil') propaganda." Hochschild built work on the evidence left by others. He is not the only decent historian, and in fact the books I cited were by Jules Marchal. However, the piece of information you repeatedly kept trying to add was clearly in stark contradiction to the facts.

Going over all the evidence to support my views and find the appropriate page numbers would take time, but it took you hardly any time at all to jump to conclusions based on your personal intuition and write back to back strawman arguments. With such a person as you, interested more in personal intuition and coming up with ways to strawman an opponent as quickly as possible, consensus is not a likely possibility. Ashy Waves (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is obvious that you are on a personal quest. You talk about "your own personal opinions/views" and your "opponents" that are ignorant because they don't understand your genius. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum A personal quest? Because you believe I am the only one who cares about forced labor? In spite of numerous books written by people who apparently care too? Your certainly haven't been reaching conclusions based on facts, so it must've been intuition, and terrible intuition at that. And you are an opponent. You make repeated strawman arguments. That behavior is consistent with being an opponent. It's not something you do to a friend or anyone you are interested in having a working relationship with. And there you go again with the strawmans. I never claimed to be any sort of genius. Anyone with literacy and a bit of patience can go and read the same things I read. If you aren't interested in that sort of thing, then you have no business interfering. Ashy Waves (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nothing you wrote is new, and nothing you wrote is denied by me. It is not about what you wrote, it is about where in the article you wrote it, how it was sourced and what the motivation was of your edits. It is also about framing information (when did it happen, where, ..) and incorporating it in the existing article. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum I don't care if you move the information. If you want to make a section titled forced labour or something like that and move most of the information I've been adding there, then fine, but that doesn't mean that inaccuracies should be allowed to flourish elsewhere. The Belgian government, as a whole, did not place a high priority on healthcare or education of the natives. I originally intended to simply delete that inaccurate statement for now and then come back to the issue later, but I saw that statement was reappearing somehow (and now it seems that you were the one putting it back), so I went ahead and added information based on Jules Marchal's research in its place, so that whomever was putting it back (apparently you) could see the corrected version and go check the book if they so wished. As I've stated before, though, Jules Marchal's books are very dense. It's easier to try to fix and improve the article on the Belgian Congo in small bits, not all at once. The information about when and where is spread out. Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts, for example, contains 13 chapters plus the Afterword, overall covering the time period from 1911 to 1945, with different chapter focusing on different time periods and regions. Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts focuses on forced labour in the palm groves. Another book by Jules Marchal covers forced labour in the gold and copper mines, from the time period from 1910-1945. Jules Marchal wrote other books, but only those two were translated into English. I don't know if you were the one who deleted my first attempts at editing that article but I hadn't figured out how to make the references look nice yet. Fortunately, I dream of horses was kind enough to help with that. Ashy Waves (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Slavery edits

Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Please stop adding the statistics to lead sections of countries like here and here. Use the Human rights subsection if need be, but don't spam every country's lead sections with a single source's information. Juxlos (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Juxlos, please stop deleting information about the fates of people who are being abused and often tortured in large numbers. If you simply wanted to move the information, you could have done so, but instead you chose to simply delete it, as if those people's lives mean nothing. I can provide many more sources than just the one, but did you ask? No, you simply chose to cover up the existence of people's suffering at the hands of others. Ashy Waves (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ashy Waves I preferred that you move the information yourself, since you can probably figure it out. But very well, I'll move it. Juxlos (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also while you're at it you could've wikilinked Global Slavery Index at least Juxlos (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Juxlos, thanks. I've never been much good at organisation anyway, even when not confronted by a confusing user interface full of unfamiliar buttons, and have generally thought organisation best saved for one of the later stages of revision. I will endeavor to add a greater variety of references to the sections you add, over time, not all today. And I'm not quite sure what wikilinking is. Ashy Waves (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Basically adding [[ ]] to stuff to turn them blue e.g. Human rights in China instead of Human rights in China. Juxlos (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Juxlos Testing Global Slavery Index Ashy Waves (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you listetning what others say or what? As I told you, you can simply forget that such a detailed info will stay in the main article about Poland. Short section about most important topic of polish economy and you are putting there an info about... slavery? Please move this topic to the talk page.NeonFor (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

NeonFor, this is the first time you've said anything to me, so far as I can tell. As for slavery, the fact that Poland still hasn't managed to eliminate forced labor from its economy in 2018 is the most important thing about the Polish economy. If the article were a person and not just a webpage, it should feel ashamed that this incredibly important information as so far not been included within it. Please stop censoring evidence that the Polish economy is not completely based on free labor. Ashy Waves (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

there is no country in this world which have completly free economy. and you are totally wrong about the importance of this small almost non-existing factor. I am moving your work to this section Slavery in Poland - this is the place where it should be located.NeonFor (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

NeonFor, the Polish economy isn't even slavery-free, let alone free in every other way implied in the classical sense. And you are completely wrong. 0.48% of the population is far from non-existent. That's nearly 1 in 200 people. To pretend otherwise is utterly ludicrous. And given the plethora of references I've provided, there is no excuse for your seeming ignorance. Ashy Waves (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC) I would add that Poland has a prevalence rank of 24 of 167 in the Global Slavery Index, which is high, especially for a European country.Reply

I have to agree that the information in not relevant for country articles. That said good to see the info moved rather then just deleted.--Moxy (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Moxy Nearly one in 200 people in Poland are enslaved. Not including references, the article is 22,101 words long, according to an automated word count. If such a horrible fate of nearly one in 200 people is not relevant enough to include in the article, then neither is almost everything else in there. Plenty of far less important information is included: art, music, fashion, etc. If this is genuinely about importance, then I invite the two of you to shorten the article to under 200 words. Given that neither of you have shown any inclination to do this so far, it would seem that this is not about importance, but rather about presenting a pro-Europe bias that hides anything bad about Poland in separate articles, hidden from easy view. Ashy Waves (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ashy Waves It's best you start a discussion on Poland talk page and stop placing information which wasn't discussed. Failure of discussion creates Edit warring and is a breach of Wikipedia's regulation, hence you can be banned from editing Wikipedia. Oliszydlowski, 12:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC).Reply

Yes we have the same problem in a few articles.....plus join the conversationsession about these edits all over.--Moxy (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oliszydlowski, I have replied to the comments left here, in spite of how ridiculous some of them are. To say that the information was not discussed, when you should be able to see just by scrolling up that it was in fact discussed, is blatantly untrue. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I understand but the discussion should be conducted on Poland talk page so all users contributing to the article can have a chance in the discussion. This can't be settled on user or private talk page between 2 or 3 users. That's the Wikipedia Policy. Oliszydlowski, 12:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oliszydlowski, then why didn't you simply explain that this discussion was located in the incorrect place, rather than falsely accusing me of not discussing in spite of clear evidence to the contrary? I fail to see how talking on a Poland talk page will give "all users" a chance to contribute when many probably won't think to look there, but I'll take your word for it that there's some policy designating it the correct place, at least. Ashy Waves (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ashy_Waves reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Edit warring at Poland and other articles

Latest comment: 6 years ago41 comments8 people in discussion

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashy Waves (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was falsely accused of not discussing even though I replied to messages left here. Within the past hour, Oliszydlowski informed me that one of these discussion should in fact occur on the Poland talk page, and I went to edit the Poland talk page accordingly, and then the India talk page, as Oliszyndlowski instructed. However, this block prevents me from even editing such talk pages as Oliszydlowski said I should do. Additionally, "edit warring" is a blockable offense even if discussion has occurred, then Moxy ought to be blocked too. Ashy Waves (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information., and please read WP:NOTTHEM. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ashy Waves (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As I understand it, the block occurred because I was unaware that if information I added to articles kept disappearing, the custom of Wikpedia would be to find the article's talk page and attempt to discuss the issue there. I did, however, reply to messages left on my talk page. I also believed that information disappearing might indicate that people wanted more references, and in one case added 11 references as evidence for a single sentence. Oliszydlowski was the first person who informed me, so far as I can recall, that my talk page was not the right place for these discussions and that I should instead find the article's talk page. Within an hour of being informed of this, I left messages on the Poland and India talk pages, which I believe should demonstrate that I was complying with Oliszydlowski's request. I intended to edit more article talk pages, but after that the block prevented me from continued compliance with Oliszydlowski's request. If the fact that I was complying with Oliszydlowski's request before the block occurred is insufficient evidence that the block was not necessary, then I don't know what is. Ashy Waves (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Certainly discussing the issues on the talk pages of relevant articles is a good idea, but the fact remains that there was a discussion on this page, there was 100% consensus among the other editors in that discussion that your editing was unacceptable, and you totally ignored that consensus and kept on plugging away at your own preferred version. Wikipedia works by collaboration, not by individual editors persisting in doing what they individually think is right, ignoring everyone else's opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

SOrry, but it looks like your were past 3RR by a country mile before you went to the talk page. We'll see if another admin feels inclined to unblock. Sorry. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dlohcierekim, is it normal to explain things like 3RR by blocking people? Some sort of hazing ritual that most people go through, so at least I'm not alone? Is there a quick summary of other things I am likely to be blocked for if I don't know about them? Ashy Waves (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Five pillars is a summary of the most prominent principles. That seen I have no problem with an unblock if Ashy Waves agrees to talk things out and not force their edits in. Agree with Ashy Waves that they may not have been aware of 3revert rule....but we where have problems on many articles...thus this was to prevent that.....if no more waring is forth coming...I see no problem with them joining chats about this now.--Moxy (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Moxy. Ashy Waves (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Moxy:}} Me too. I think. Looks like the latest reviewing admin declined. Will send it back to the blocking admin. I assume you understand that you can't continue to revert and claim to be taking part in the discussion. LOoks like you'd stopped. @EdJohnston: do you think it would be OK? --Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

JamesBWatson 100% consensus? What a joke. I suppose there is also 100% consensus that I do not even exist. Are you aware that the computer from which you typed the false claim that there was "100% consensus" about this was likely made by slaves?^[1] How do you think they would feel that you are using a product they were tortured into making for you to go on about how there is "100% consensus" about their lack of importance? Ashy Waves (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wow. That little word-explosion may prove counter-productive. If that was meant as an addendum to your unblock appeal, it would not help your cause at all. It gives the impression of editing with an ax to grind. You might wish to strike or remove.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

After your block expires, please keep in mind WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There are a lot of places on the Internet where you can use your zeal to bring social injustices to the forefront and shine a spotlight on them but Wikipedia is not one of those places. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

NeilN, I do not see how that second link is applicable (and as for the first, I shall try to return to that later, or bit by bit), but I can see how you might need some explanation of why I do not see how it is applicable, especially if you have not been following the details of the dispute. To quote what you linked, "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to: [list of examples] on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them."

I made sure that inserting references was one of the first Wikipedia formatting thingies I learned how to use, and even before I figured out the formatting of references, I still included references, albeit incorrectly formatted ones. Take, for example, the Global Slavery Index. If you go to this page, you can see a listing of experts who have contributed to the Global Slavery Index, along with brief explanations of their qualifications."About the Global Slavery Index". Retrieved 15 March 2018.

If you search Google News for "Global Slavery Index", you can see that a wide variety of news sources consider the Global Slavery Index to be a website worth citing. Google News returns about 4,510 results. Here are just a few examples.

Forrest, Grace; Durgana, Davina (February 14, 2018). "Why measuring global slavery is so crucial to eradicating it". CNN. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Kelly, Annie (1 June 2016). "46 million people living as slaves, latest global index reveals". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Blair, David (31 May 2016). "The world has over 45 million slaves - including 1.2 million in Europe - finds new study". The Telegraph. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Hartogs, Jessica (October 17, 2013). "Slavery still grips tens of millions worldwide, report says". CBS News. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"Report: Global slavery skyrocketed in 2015". Fox News. May 31, 2016. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"More than 45 million people trapped in modern slavery with two-thirds in Asia-Pacific region, report finds". ABC. 31 May 2016. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Frisk, Adam (May 31, 2016). "There are 6,500 slaves in Canada, nearly 46 million worldwide: charity". Global News. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Phillips, Catherine (11/17/14). "India Tops Global Slavery Index With Over 14 Million People Enslaved". Newsweek. Retrieved 15 March 2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

"35.8 million people held in modern slavery". Al Jazeera. November 18, 2014. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"What does modern slavery look like?". BBC. 31 May 2016. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"Global leaders commit to eradicating modern slavery". Reuters. August 25, 2017. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

McCarthy, Niall (November 18, 2014). "Nearly 36 Million People Live In Modern Slavery [Infographic]". Forbes. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Browne, Rachel (31 May 2016). "Andrew Forrest puts world's richest countries on notice: Global Slavery Index". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Gladstone, Rick (May 31, 2016). "Modern Slavery Estimated to Trap 45 Million People Worldwide". New York Times. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Taylor, Adam (September 19, 2017). "There are an estimated 40 million slaves in the world. Where do they live and what do they do?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Dennett, Harley (11/12/2017). "New agency needed to combat slavery practices in Australia". The Mandarin. Retrieved 15 March 2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

American Statistical Association (November 2, 2017). "Innovative statistical methods shed light on extent of modern slavery in US, world". Phys.org. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Jackson, Reuben (March 15, 2018). "Ending Modern Day Slavery With Blockchain Tech". Market Mogul. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Ghumra, Shamir (1 March 2018). "The realities of modern slavery". The HR Director. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Some things citing the Global Slavery Index and specifically mentioning Poland.

Bojarski, Janusz (2017). "Human trafficking as economic crime and its legal characterisation in polish criminal law": 113–125. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.16.7. Retrieved 15 March 2018. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help)

Lowe, Josh (5/31/16). "Over 1 Million 'Trapped in Slavery' in Europe". Newsweek. Retrieved 15 March 2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Alvarez, Tom (ed.). The Statesman’s Yearbook 2017: The Politics, Cultures, and Economies of the World (153rd ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

I believe this establishes that the Global Slavery Index is well-regarded by a variety of news agencies, and that I am not simply doing "Advertising, marketing or public relations" for an insignificant website, but I can continue providing more examples if those are insufficient.

The US Department of State produces an annual Trafficking in Person report, which includes information about many countries. "Trafficking in Persons Report 2017". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

As for the topic of modern slavery more broadly, and not simply estimates of the numbers, there are many books, news articles, documentaries, and videos on the subject.

Some of the books about modern slavery in my collection are:

Wright, Robert (2017). The Poverty of Slavery: How Unfree Labor Pollutes the Economy. Springer Nature.

Bales, Kevin (2016). Blood and Earth: Modern Slavery, Ecocide, and the Secret to Saving the World (First ed.). Spiegel & Grau. ISBN 978-0-8129-9576-3.

Bales, Kevin (2012). Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (Revised ed.). Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Bales, Kevin (2007). Ending Slavery: How We Free Today’s Slaves. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Bales, Kevin (2005). Understanding Global Slavery: A Reader. Berkely, California: University of California Press.

Bales, Kevin (2004). New Slavery: A Reference Handbook (Second ed.). ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Bales, Kevin; Trodd, Zoe; Williamson, Alex Kent (2009). Modern Slavery: The Secret World of 27 Million People. Oxford, England: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-85168-641-4.

Bales, Kevin; Soodalter, Ron (2009). The Slave Next Door: Human Trafficking and Slavery in America Today. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25515-9.

Benkhe, Alison Marie (2015). Up For Sale: Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery. Minneapolis, MN: Twenty-First Century Books.

Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. (2011). Slavery in the Modern World: A History of Political Social, and Economic Oppression. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Scarpa, Silvia (2008). Trafficking in human beings: Modern slavery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kara, Siddharth (2009). Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery. Columbia University Pres.

Murphy, Laura T. (2014). Survivors of Slavery: Modern-Day Slavery Narratives. Columbia University Press.

Sher, Abby (2014). Breaking Free: True Stories of Girls Who Escaped Modern Slavery. Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.

Hepburn, Stephanie; Simon, Rita J. (2013). Human Trafficking Around the World: Hidden in Plain Sight. Columbia University Press.

Choi-Fitzpatrick, Austin (2017). What slaveholders think: how contemporary perpetrators rationalize what they do. New York: Columbia University Press.

This is by no means a complete listing of books available on modern slavery. Further examples can be provided if needed.

A wide variety of news sources discuss modern slavery. For example, the CNN Freedom Project focuses on the topic of modern day slavery. "The CNN Freedom Project: Ending modern-day slavery". CNN. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Al Jazeera has published a series of videos on the topic of modern slavery. "Slavery: A 21st Century Evil". Retrieved 15 March 2018.

A section of The Guardian's website focuses on slavery. "Slavery". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

BBC also has a section focusing on slavery. "Slavery". BBC. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

The New York Times has a section on human trafficking. "Human Trafficking". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"Combating modern-day slavery". Radio Poland. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

There are a number of videos and documentaries about modern slavery.

"Slavery: A Global Investigation". Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"Slavery: A 21st Century Evil". Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"Kevin Bales: How to combat modern slavery". Youtube. TED. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"Building Awareness > Videos". Free the Slaves. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Pattisson, Pete (25 September 2013). "Revealed: Qatar's World Cup 'slaves'". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

"The Hidden Brutality Of Qatar's FIFA World Cup Preparations". Youtube. Journeyman Pictures. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Journal articles

Fletcher, Laurel E .; Bales, Kevin; Stover, Eric (2005). "Hidden Slaves: Forced Labor in the United States". Berkeley Journal of International Law. 23 (1). Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Bales, Kevin (Spring 2000). "Expendable People: Slavery in the Age of Globalization". Journal of International Affairs. 53 (2). Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Bales, Kevin. "International Labor Standards: Quality of Information and Measures of Progress in Combating Forced Labor". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Bales, Kevin (April 2002). "the social psychology of Modern Slavery". Scientific American. 286 (4): 80–88. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Bales, Kevin; Robbins, Peter T. (January 2001). ""No one shall be held in slavery or servitude": A critical analysis of international slavery agreements and concepts of slavery". Human Rights Review. 2 (2): 18–45. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

Bojarski, Janusz (2017). "Human trafficking as economic crime and its legal characterisation in polish criminal law": 113–125. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.16.7. Retrieved 15 March 2018. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |doi= (help)

Not done providing examples of the abundant published information about modern slavery available, but going away from my computer for awhile and wish to save my progress.

In any case, a number of people around here apparently feel that the topic of the suffering of these people simply isn't important, regardless of the number of references offered. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Updated Ashy Waves (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dlohcierekim I believe I have demonstrated my intention go along with Wikipedia's custom of discussing things on article talk pages, rather than on my own talk page. However, if it is also the custom to remain silent, even on talk pages, in the face of blatantly untrue facts, I do not intend to go along with that, nor would I be worth my salt if I did. It would also seem that there are plenty of people who are far more guilty of having "an axe to grind" than I am. I would point out that I haven't blocked anyone, nor would I have even if I could. (Though I may have to clarify that my suggesting that, depending on what the rules are, perhaps another editor should be blocked as well, was intended more as a way of expressing my confusing regarding the one-sideness of these whole proceedings than as a serious suggestion that he be blocked.) Certainly, if it is normal procedure to block people until they pretend to agree with others, it would disprove the claim that Wikipedia is based on collaboration. Ashy Waves (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Bales, Kevin. "Your Phone Was Made By Slaves: A Primer on the Secret Economy". Longreads. Retrieved 15 March 2018.

JamesBWatson, I would also add that if there is one thing I have learned from all this, it is that Wikipedia does not work by collaboration. Ashy Waves (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ashy Waves is reluctant to concede there was anything wrong with their edits. My concern is that if they are unblocked they will be back again at WP:AN3 very quickly. I would consider offering an unblock condition relating to human rights, but based on their last comment I doubt it would work. (The comments about 'blatantly untrue facts' and 'axe to grind' don't inspire confidence). I agree with User:NeilN's observation about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

EdJohnstonMy edits were referenced, and I have numerous other references available if the ones I already provided are considered insufficient for whatever reason. I have conceded that there were some rules regarding disputes of which I was unaware, but quite frankly, other people don't seem to be following them either. JamesBWatson claimed that "there was 100% consensus", and even if for whatever reason I don't count as a person, there was at least one person above who seemed fine with the idea of including statistics about slavery in articles, as long as they weren't in "the lead" and additional references were provided. JamesBWatson's statement is thus blatantly untrue. I have already begun responding to NeilN's complaint about RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and although I have not yet finished, I believe there is enough there already to demonstrate the point that the RIGHTGREATWRONGS complaint is, upon examination, rather baseless. There are numerous reputable references on the topic of modern slavery, the topic is simply incredibly neglected on Wikipedia. As for axes to grind, I would point out once again that you blocked me even after I was complying with the request of one of the people above. I certainly haven't tried to block you. It would seem that if anyone here has an axe to grind, your axe is much bigger than mine. I stand by the statement that I have learned that Wikipedia does not work by collaboration. There has been nothing collaborative about this experience. Hardly any discussion about the quality or contents of the references, a great deal of censorship, a lot of accusations, some of which were untrue, and a great number of heartfelt opinions that the extreme suffering of millions of people simply isn't important. Considering the bureaucratic hoops that must apparently be jumped through in order to add well-referenced material about modern slavery on Wikipedia, my guess is that continuing at the present pace, it will take several decades at the very least to fix Wikipedia's gross undercoverage of the topic. And for all the talk about consensus, I see hardly any effort at reaching any such thing and instead a great deal of effort to use censorship as a tool to persuade people to merely pretend to share consensus with you. Ashy Waves (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's the "What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them" statement which is key here. For example, there's no doubt that opioid use disorder is one of the most significant social challenges facing many countries today. Yet you're likely not going to find any mention of it in any top-level country articles because editors have deemed it would have undue weight. You need to convince other editors that the material you want to add is important enough for the article and not just a way to highlight an issue you think needs more attention. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

NeilN, I am uncertain if you missed my longer reply above or if you simply consider all of the references provided therein to be irrelevant. In case you simply missed it, I am reposting below. I don't see much point in this page permanently containing a double-copy, though, so feel free to delete one of the two copies, and, if so inclined, reply to whichever one you leave in. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I skimmed over it but it's not me you need to discuss with, it's the editors interested in the articles you're editing. I'm just giving you some advice on how to approach matters after your block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nevertheless you have expressed an opinion, though perhaps I should not think too hard on that line of thought lest my head hurt any worse. In any case, comparing slavery to opioid use disorder is a very, very poor comparison. Slavery is something people are subjected to against their will. While I'm sure there are some cases of forced drugging, most cases of opiod use seem to be voluntary. The article linked estimates that 16 million people have been affected at one point in time by opioid use disorder. The 2016 Global Slavery Index estimates that at any given time, 45.8 million people are enslaved. Another estimate states that 89 million have been enslaved at some point within the past 5 years.Simmons, Ann M. (September 19, 2017). "Slavery is alive and well: 89 million have been in some form of bondage in the last five years, report says". Retrieved 15 March 2018. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC) While enslaved, people often suffer from a variety of related crimes such as kidnapping, sexual abuse including rape, torture, and murder, not to mention a variety of health problems relating to stress, overwork, and malnourishment. Simply put, slavery is a far, far bigger problem than opioid abuse disorder. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you read over Wikipedia:Advocacy.--Moxy (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Moxy, perhaps you should read it. The Poland article is anything but neutral. While material which might be damaging to Poland's reputation as some sort of paradise is hidden away on separate pages, the denialist view of slavery in Poland is included. "this trend can be largely attributed to Poland's rejection of slavery" indeed! It would probably be true to say that most Polish people dislike slavery, but rejection implies more than that, rejection implies the successful elimination of slavery, which has not occurred. The Poland article is not written in accord with "verifiablity" or "netural point of view", it's written in accord with wishful thinking. The existence of slavery in Poland is established by books, journals, and news articles, and there are many books, journals, and news articles establishing the existence of slavery worldwide, a number of which specifically cite the Global Slavery Index, because, unlike people around here, they don't consider it dubious just because they don't like what it has to say. The Statesman’s Yearbook 2017: The Politics, Cultures, and Economies of the World is a book, encyclopedic in nature, which considers the Global Slavery Index worth citing in their articles about countries, including Poland, whereas they do not consider the denialist viewpoint worth including. The Stateman's Yearbook would seem to agree with my assessment that slavery is a bigger issue than opioid abuse disorder, as I can find nothing in it about opioids, whereas they repeatedly mention the Global Slavery Index. The Statesman’s Yearbook 2017 is neutral and verifiable. Wikipedia is not. While numerous news agencies (including right-leaning ones), journals, and books are doing their part to raise the hue and cry about slavery, Wikipedia is working against them, hiding information about slavery less significant pages and maintaining the denialist view of slavery on the main Poland mage. Ashy Waves (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps best you read over Wikipedia:Single-purpose account as well.--Moxy (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Moxy, you seem reluctant to come right out and say that you don't believe that the information is neutral or verifiable or well-referenced or whatever, and yet you keep linking to webpages which imply that this is your view. For example, the one you just linked says, "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly with regard to sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations." I have spent over a year now researching the topic of slavery, both modern and historical, during my spare time. I have borrowed and in some cases bought a variety of books on the topic. I have read news articles, watched videos and documentaries, even found a few journal articles that were available for free, and even attended a free online anti-slavery course from the University of Nottingham. I cannot provide a complete listing of every reference I have reviewed over that time period, especially given how long it takes to fill out the little template thing in the UI, but if you scroll above, you can see that I have listed a number which are relevant to the question at hand. I will copy-paste it below to make it easier to find. In fact, I think it would be nice if it had it's own section on my talk page, since I've been trying to add more things to it a bit at a time, but the UI is confusing and I'm more interested in looking over my books and things than in figuring the UI out. In any case, if you actually want to talk about references, please talk about the ones provided instead of simply linking to pages talking generically about references. Ashy Waves (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Additionally, I checked the nearest reference to the statement "this trend can be largely attributed to Poland's rejection of slavery", and, within the pages listed by whomever added the reference (God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1: The Origins to 1795, pp 126–131, 185), the only mention of slavery involves Tartar war parties raiding Poland. It would seem that the reference is intended to support other material, and not that particular statement. The denialist opinion that "this trend can be largely attributed to Poland's rejection of slavery" is either someone's personal viewpoint, or else in a reference not listed, or else in a reference that was removed from the page at some point in the past. Ashy Waves (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(Repost) NeilN, I do not see how that second link is applicable (and as for the first, I shall try to return to that later, or bit by bit), but I can see how you might need some explanation of why I do not see how it is applicable, especially if you have not been following the details of the dispute. To quote what you linked, "We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to: [list of examples] on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them."