ClaudioSantos

On SPK

• Analysis on RAF comuniques and letters about SPK. RAF distance against SPK: http://books.google.com.co/books?id=9xfmuHGDcomplimen4IAC&pg=PA351&dq=Huber+und+seine+Frau+wurden+in+Stammheim+inhaftiert&hl=es&ei=GNZITZr0D8rZgQeKotSpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• RAF-SPK connection never probed: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-43019841.html
• Juicio sin garantías, prohibido contacto con abogados y exclusión de abogados. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-42762996.html
• 1970 Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-43800954.html
• Friederich Ralf Baptist, Lutz Taufer y sieglinde Hoffman Elyzabeth Von Diyck no eran SPK pero del comite para presos al que se habían ido. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13501199.html

• I've done some work on the SPK lead (including some grammar fixes); please review. I've found a useful source that I hadn't come across before; have a look:
  • Zbigniew Kotowicz (2 April 1997). R.D. Laing and the paths of anti-psychiatry. Routledge. pp. 80–81. ISBN 9780415116107. Retrieved 1 March 2011.. Cheers, --JN466 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

About SPK

From [1]

Hi there. Thanks for you efforts. May I ask you: is this [2] really a reliable, verifiable source for such an accusation. For me it seems like a gossip never sourced but a WP:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops. This book as any other with such accusation, fails to provide the source and the context of such an accusation although presented as a fact. Perhaps you should read [3] and look for the parts related to president Heinemann. Also external authors have mentioned it was a desinformation campaign against SPK. It also seems like editing Nelson Mandela article based on the police warrants made against him which lead him to prison, with the difference that none from SPK was ever sentenced nor imprisoned for that allegedely "plan to bomb a president train". If you don't mind I could also mention here some concerns about the other sources and affirmations ("many from SPK bacem RAF", etc.). PD: a retoric question: should we consider SPK as terrorists just because MagisterMathematicae said that "SPK (is well known back from 2005) from using terrorist-like tactics"[4]? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I would have to do some more research on this. I am not familiar with the history, or alternative narratives. Which languages do you speak? I could help with German sources. Rubin seems to satisfy WP:RS; but I also know that the quality of terrorism literature is variable. --JN466 16:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Any source claiming that members from SPK were terrorist should be considered a dubious non-reliable source: that crime did not even exist in German Law at SPK times (70/71), but it was introduced in 1976, years after SPK self-disolution, years after the trials. None of SPK were accused of that crime ever. Calumny consists in accusing someone of a crime he/she did not commited. But not only for Grem Guma but for J.P. Sartre it was a political persecution against those people of SPK.

Off topic: well, for my part I'm really concerned that MagisterMathematicae published accusations of "terrorism-like tactics" refering to those people from SPK. And I'm also concerned with this sort of behaviour:[5], where admin-user Sabbut published a private name of a person, obviously without his/her consent and accused him/her of "threats". Exactly the same procedure was used also in the english wikipedia:[6] by user unfortunate. It seems that demanding not to publish defamatory and offensive material -which is forbidden by the own policies of wikipedia but also by law- is assumed by some wikipedian-users and wikipedian-admins as an allegedly "threat", an allegedely disruption and as an excuse to publish defamatory and unsourced contentious material and even to accuse the people who try to stop that behaviour as people acting with "terrorism-like tactics". That is very serious, don't you think so? I read that wikipedia forbid legal threats but does it means a wikipedian is allowed to act against the law here and to accuse people of acting like terrorists? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've refactored the name on that talk page; there is no need to have it there. I agree that the edit by Unfortunate was "unfortunate", i.e. unsourced and a blatant BLP violation (even according to the version of WP:BLP that existed at the time). Do you have a link or source for the Guma/Sartre comments? Best, --JN466 22:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

see a summary of this off-topic at the bottom...

Just to point out that the name of the SPK member is the same one who vandalized Discusión:Salud/Archivo 2004 and threatened to reveal the true identity of sysops Ascánder and JorgeGG [7]. He has signed with his name in both places. However, it is true that he only signed with his given name and not with his last name, and even though he did sign with his full name in other articles in the SPK website, the best thing will be for me to hide from public view the edition where I revealed his full name. I just hope that Claudio Santos is just as vehement when it is the identities of Ascánder and JorgeGG which are at stake and compels the editor of the SPK website to remove immediately the threat against the Spanish Wikipedia sysops. Sabbut (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• A link to the text from Greg Guma: [8] and look there for "Shaping the environment", and also read this Connie Page "Vermont Town in Uproar over Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Who Wasn’t," The Boston Phoenix (Sep 30, 1978).
• About allegedelly "SPK->RAF" have you read this[9]? but you may ask yourself how can be that true if RAF explicity said:

"quatsch ist, dass huber zur raf gehört, weil er das info liest. dazu kann nur er und er nur durch ne grundsätzliche kritik seiner politik vor seiner verhaftung kommen. alles andere ist unmöglich." "wir und ein teil von uns ganz sicher, wissen was wir wollen + was sich ausschließt. es wird keinen versuch geben, die raf in die nähe eines dieser sparvereine zu schieben (kpd/ml oder spk oder was immer)."

Das Info -Briefe von Gefangenen aus der RAF 1973-1977, Dokumente herausgegeben von Pieter H. Bakker Schut, Malik Verlag, p.49 and p.104

• About Sartre support to SPK:[10], one translation of the prologue from Sartre:[11], but why not to read directly the SPK site:[12] which is in german?
• I also noticed that spanish wikipedians asked you to translate some articles from Der Spiegel to source its article about SPK. Is Der Spiegle a reliable source? Here some examples which you should consider:
  • Here[13][14], they referes to the mentioned Krist. as a "terrorist" but as you could read before: each charge against her was dropped, and none of those charges was terrorism.
  • Here[15] they said that Krist. and other guy "gemacht haben soll" the murder of the german attorney general Siegfried Buback. But from the same source Krist. was not related, nor accused, nor legally prosecuted neither sentenced for that crime, as you can read here:[16].

so it seems a non-reliable source.

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, these are good sources, and I'll do my best to see to it that the comments by Sartre, the German Embassy, and those about the philosophical proximity to Szasz etc. get representation. As for Der Spiegel, although I don't believe everything I read in Der Spiegel, the way Wikipedia is set up Der Spiegel is a "reliable source" -- by Wikipedia's criteria. However, that does not mean that Wikipedia can or should ignore subsequent reports in equally reliable sources showing that statements, or what amounts to mere speculations, made in Der Spiegel (or elsewhere) were wrong.

If you have anything that pertains directly to or invalidates the statements in those two Der Spiegel articles that I said I will translate for the Spanish editors, do let me know, and I'll present those sources at the same time. It will probably be a couple of days before I get back to the Spanish editors, as I'm snowed under with work. You're welcome to e-mail me too (see toolbox in left sidebar). I'd be interested in your view of the present German and English articles on the SPK, just to help me get my bearings with what is fine and where you have concerns. --JN466 02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, by now, perhaps you should read: http://www.spkpfh.de/Kraken_jagen.htm

Have you succeed in finding the events around president Heinemann and SPK in http://www.spkpfh.de/Long_Letter.htm?

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The text is clearly a translation; is there a German original version of the "long letter"? Has it been cited by any third-party source? --JN466 01:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It should be noticed that on claims about president's train, Rubin fails to provide any source to validate it. I've exahustively looked for it, but it is not there. And perhaps you already realized that it lacks everywhere, as it is not in Rubin's book neither in other books claiming the same assertion. Is it a WP:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops? Some sources [17] claim mrs.C.R. was not from SPK but from RAF. Each source states she was arrested on march/1972 not in july/1971 when all SPK patients were certainly arrested. Also I could not find any source claiming she was sentenced because of planning a bomb against any train, ¿could you?. But certainly it should be more important to realize that sources claim: she was tortured ("zwangswaise narkotisiert") by prison doctors and there were legal procedures/trial against those doctors [18][19].
• But, now let return to president's train and SPK. Then you succeed in finding the events around president Heinemann and SPK, as described in http://www.spkpfh.de/Long_Letter.htm, exactly in those paragraphs starting with "...the doctors behind the authorities put the things from the feet to the head in the case of SPK..." and ending with "...in order to-heal-illness-by-killing-those-who-are-ill.". All that letter was written in english, as it was a long letter to an American writer who has written a book based on it, as you also may find although not in fine print.
• There are tons of documents full of details and contexts, denying such sort of gossips. Could you read: http://www.spkpfh.de/Kraken_jagen.htm?

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I am sorry for the slow replies, I am currently working 18-hour shifts. The Hitler's Children book says Roll was "ex-SPK", i.e. a former member of the SPK. --JN466 03:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This source says "a few" ("more than a dozen") SPK members (a rather small percentage of the overall membership) joined the RAF, among them Carmen Roll. As far as I can make out, there are a lot of sources identifying Roll as an SPK member who joined the RAF some time in 1971 [20]. I haven't found any sources yet saying what exactly Roll was charged with, or convicted of. --JN466 04:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Here some snippets distancing Roll and others from Huber: [21][22][23] --JN466 05:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And some sources claim she was RAF[24][25][26]. Yes, the sources are contradictory (for example: she/he was SPK or not? exactly how many from SPK became later RAF, few or many? why if RAF rejected SPK, some sources claim SPK became/was RAF?). How to choose the right source? is the risk forbidden per WP:BLP? could you find the original source for that issues, for example a source for the train issue, in order to ensure that it is not a gossip-loop? So, as you realized, this woman not being from SPK, is only one of many details and contradictions emerging just from only one event. Therefore I do not want to prevent you from reading the very large sources I introduced and the other sources you found, but meanwhile perhaps you will be interested in considering the following proposal about the WP-article:

Let me notice, that the current procedure used to write the WP's article about SPK, is basically to copy-and-paste isolated, decontextualized and dispersed data taken from dispersed sources here and there; most sources dealing mainly with organizations (RAF, etc.) and marginally with SPK, contradicted by other sources and not to forget: data and sources denied by legal procedures from the people of SPK. Then, those disperse data/events are being placed together in the WP-article, joined without any other criteria but with the criteria/opinion of the wikipedia author, and presented as the history and theory of SPK. Certainly that is not the history neither the theory of SPK, but it is certainly a original research, thus forbidenn by wikipedia policies, not just demanding a lot of time to corroborate the large amount of data and emerging contradictions, but also risking to mislead the readers and to harm that people of SPK and other people. Instead of that, there is a lot of information and even history taken down in the SPK site and certainly the readers -even you- could contrast that info with external sources whenever they need. Therefore, I would suggest to leave a short paragraph about SPK and a link to that site. What do you think?

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

At present practically nothing in the Spanish article is properly sourced. The first source is the SPK"s own website, whose use as a source is not ideal, but defensible as long as it is compatible with WP:SELFPUB (I'm pretty sure the corresponding Spanish guideline is pretty similar). The second source, which is the basis for the bulk of the present article, is self-published. The third source is used for an isolated factoid. So yes, as things stand, a short article seems sensible, pending proper research. (A link to the organization's own site is standard and present even now). --JN466 06:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also encyclopaedias like Brokhaus and DTV have decided to do so [27] and heed SPK. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you found the entrie aimed to Brockhaus, etc. ? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean the text included on [28], correct? (I've read the above letter from dtv.) Best, --JN466 16:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this source; are there any major factual errors in it? --JN466 16:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well,
  • Yes, correct, that is the SPK text for encyclopedias, which is also included here: http://www.spkpfh.de/Gossipcide.htm, and in German here:[29].
  • About this source [30]: I think yes, it has a lot of major factual errors and factoids. Have you compare that with this: http://www.spkpfh.de/Zeittafel.htm (also in english: [31])
  • Take a look on the following proposal. It is somehow the current spanish version, but corrected and reworded, thus refactored. I've cited the respective SPK sources, but to satisfy the WP policies and easy the thing, I also added some external sources which certainly you will find somehow approximate to the SPK sources (for example:[32]); but when emerged any contradiction, be it in the wording, I just prefered and I suggest to heed and follow the SPK version:

El Colectivo Socialista de Pacientes (en alemán Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv, y conocido por sus siglas SPK) fue un colectivo de pacientes fundado en Heidelberg en febrero de 1970, por el Paciente de Frente Wolfgang Huber, WD, Dr.médico. El programa del SPK era hacer de la enfermedad un arma y continúa activo. El SPK ha surgido del Frente de Pacientes, existente desde 1965. El SPK ha declarado su auto-disolución en julio de 1971 como retirada estratégica. Luego el SPK ha continuado existiendo sin interrupción como Frente de Pacientes, actualmente como PF/SPK(H). Para el SPK la enfermedad es la realidad existente innegable, enfermedad efectiva, y es causada por el sistema capitalista. El SPK lucha a favor de la enfermedad, a la que considera la anticipación de la especie humana, y lucha contra el capitalismo y contra todos los médicos a quienes considera la clase dominante del sistema. La más conocida entre numerosas publicaciones del PF/SPK(H), es el libro SPK – Hacer de la enfermedad un arma, con un prólogo del fundador del SPK, Huber, WD, y un prólogo de Jean-Paul Sartre. Algunas de sus publicaciones se encuentran en su página oficial www.spkpfh.de

PF/SPK(H), Text for entries on the SPK in the Encyclopedias of Brockhaus, Duden, etc.-- PF/SPK(H), Propuesta para un texto sobre el SPK. Un resumen-- SPK/PF(H), Colectivo Socialista de Pacientes (SPK) Frente de Pacientes (PF), Lista de fechas, en resumen--SPK-Hacer de la enfermedad un arma, 1997, ISBN 3-926491-21-3-- Trevor Blake, SPK - Krankheit Im Recht, ISBN: 3926491264.-- Ian Parker, Deconstructing psychopathology, ISBN=9780803974814 p.120 -- [Spandler, H.1992. To Make an army out of Illness: a history of the Socialist Patients Collective (SPK). Heidelberg 1970/71/Asylum 6(4)]-- Félix Guattari, Molecular revolution: psychiatry and politics, 1984, ISBN: 0140551603, p.67-68--Gary Genosko, Deleuze and Guattari: critical assessments of leading philosophers, p.480-481,798

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but would point out that this version does not mention Huber's arrest, conviction and sentence (which is mentioned in the SPK Zeittafel), nor does it mention what they were -- rightly or wrongly -- convicted of, and it does not mention that, according to multiple sources, about a dozen former SPK members moved across to the RAF when the SPK was dissolved. Another fact that is missing is that the Hubers were denied the right to practice medicine (also in Zeittafel). Could we work on a version that incorporates that info? Best, --JN466 21:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have info on the event described in some sources as the suicide of a patient in April 1971? I note this suicide is disputed on the SPK website, but without further detail being given. What happened? --JN466 21:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

About details and contexts I have to recommend again the SPK site: www.spkpfh.de, for example: [33] and [34]. About the WP article, I believed that you have agreed that: it is better a short and a general article than a larger and more detailed but bad sourced and controversial one, builded by selecting isolated factoids or even facts from disperse sources (that is WP:OR). Leave aside the factoids. What about the facts? Of course, there are a lot of details (events, specificities, words, etc.) which are actually not mentioned in my proposal. For example it is not mentioned the first assembly of patients in favour of illness and against the doctors, and that is just a very important detail which is missed. There is not explicity mentioned the concept of illness neither its dialectic moments, although being the main core of SPK ideology-philosophy-practice. About legal perspective: it is not mentioned the legal procedure used by the SPK patients at those times against eviction, dismissal, etc. About the detention of patients of SPK, it does not mention the struggle of those patients inside and outside the prisons (cited by SPK sources but also by external sources like that from Guattari I cited), the hungerstrikes, the legal procedures against the responsabile doctors, and it is not mentioned the accusations, trials and sentences against doctors since those times; it is also not mentioned that the detention and imprisonement of SPK patients could be considered a sort of political persecution and a desinformation campaign as sources state (I've just added three more soueces in my last edition which claim that and even denounce tortures against SPK patients: [35][36][37]) -instigated by the doctors, as states the SPK[38]. Yes it does not mentions that Hubers were forbidden to practice medicine but it also does not mention that Hubers had already rejected to be doctors forever and brand themesleves as patients, front patients. Abolition of the doctor-patient relation is certainly an important detail about SPK/PF-ideology and practice, but a detail not mentioned at all in the proposed entrie. There is not mentioned where were all the 500 patients before coming to SPK, neither where they were after SPK dissolved (abroad? working? in the PF/SPK(H)? no where?). About the allegedely dozen former SPK members allegedely moved across to the RAF, I believe that you could realize that they are mostly factoids claimed by sources which does not provide the original source for those affirmations, as we discovered with one single case (C.R. and train bombing). If you read the legal procedures from SPK[39], you will find that they even demonstrated that a lot of those persons were not ever in the SPK. But you also could realize that external sources are also contradictory in this issue, as I showed and cited: some sources claim this persons were from RAF but do not claim they were from SPK, so, per WP:BLP you should remain conservative in publishing that info. And you may notice that those sources claiming that "dozen SPK patients became RAF", seem to be very biased sources reducing all the history of SPK to that allegedely relation with RAF, trying to exemplify with those "dozen" persons that SPK became RAF and that SPK was barely nothing else but a terrorist group, which is a claim denied by other sources([40], Spandler, etc.), denied by the Law (that crime did not existed then and nobody from SPK were sentenced because RAF and viceversa, and SPK was never forbidden) and a claim denied by RAF self (RAF rejected expresively and take distance from SPK, is it a contradiction that RAF agrees in this point with the Law?). A claim which was rejected by legal procedures (defamation, calumny, etc.) by the people of SPK, and a claim which was deleted from Encylopedias like Brockhaus and dtv, as you already realized. Certainly these last details (legal procedures against those false allegations against SPK) are also part of the history of SPK, but are also not mentioned at all in my proposal, and certainly you will notice that these details would be certainly related to a legal perspective on SPK, and not only the details around detentions against Hubers. Well, again: of course, this general short article lacks a lot of details, but we already discussed the reasons to do so. If the article would need to be improved then it could be done in the future. Do you agree again? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article should be conservative, especially where facts are disputed by different sources, that it should not assign undue weight to the fact that some SPK members subsequently joined the RAF, and should restrict itself to high-quality publications. However, I cannot support you in your argument that the SPK perspective should be the only one represented, as that is not the premise upon which Wikipedia is built – no organisation or political actor enjoys that privilege on Wikipedia. However, each article on Wikipedia links to the article subject's home page, and so does and will the SPK article, allowing readers access to the subject's understanding of itself. --JN466 16:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I preferred to use those words used by SPK, like "collective" instead of "organization", "dissolved" instead of "disbanded", "patients" instead of "clients"; is it a POV?. But beyond that, my proposed entrie is not a perspective about SPK but it merely contains the following contents: what means the name SPK, where was SPK founded, who did found SPK, when was SPK dissolved, how and by whom was SPK continued until now, what is in general terms the SPK ideology, what is the internet site of SPK. So I can not imagine what sort of contents is proposed to "balance" that information and I do not understand how these facts could be considered POV, moreover I think that any fact can not be "balanced" but denied if it is not true. Does SPK not mean "Socialist Patients' Collective"? Was SPK not founded in Heidelberg?, was SPK not founded by Huber?, was SPK not dissolved in july 1971?, was SPK not continued by PF/SPK(H) as Patientenfront declared explicity by Huber self? Does SPK not enact that "doctors are the ruling class of capitalism and SPK fight asgainst doctors"? Is not the enacted SPK program: "turn illness into a weapon, in favour of illness and against capitalism"? is not http://www.spkpfh.de the SPK internet site? Is there any source claiming otherwise?

The entrie is limited to those facts, it does not include any perspective nor any allegation -true or false- about SPK.

So let me ask more questions: Are the defamatory and false allegations about SPK being a terrorist group linked to RAF, the data which should be inserted, despite of WP:BLP and despite of all that we discussed (allegation denied by RAF, allegations denied by the trials, allegations denied by the legal procedures from SPK/PF(H) against defamation, allegations denied by reliable sources -so you agree wikipedia article should remain conservative to avoid harming people-, allegations which were deleted from Brockhaus and dtv encyclopedias)? And, at any rate, those allegations do not deny the facts of my proposed entrie, so how exactly those false allegations could "balance" my proposed entrie? Is the insertion of defamatory contents a way to balance an article in wikipedia? Sincerely I know your negative answer to this last question, but why not to question it here?.

And let me propose even more questions: If actually those sources which mention some names of people from SPK who later were RAF, explicity do so in order to claim the alleged connection between SPK and RAF as well as SPK being terrorist; then would not be the insertion of those names, in any case, an insertion of "unduly weighted" content as it implies those harmful allegations? Why not to insert into each wikipedia's article of each kindergarten, school, university, editorial and company, the name of each RAF member who studied or worked there before becoming RAF?

I hope, I do not look rhetoric or mayeutic due my questions. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, at the least the fact that the Hubers were arrested and imprisoned should be in the article, and also what they were convicted of. This, after all, led to the SPK being dissolved. Not mentioning this would be like having an article about Martin Luther King, and not mentioning that he was jailed.

I would support you in that the article should not state that the SPK was a terrorist organisation. I think the sources that you have brought to the table back you up in this regard. However, from what I have read, it seems undisputed that some members of the SPK -- but certainly NOT Huber himself, as the SPK's founder -- did move across to the RAF, and later became highly notable RAF members. --JN466 09:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask: what has SPK to do with the RAF members notoriety? Is this the RAF entrie or the SPK one? At any rate, none from SPK "did move across" to the RAF. If few from SPK were later a member of RAF, it happened after SPK was self-dissolved, be it years later. And every RAF member, even those who years before were SPK, but any member of RAF was compelled to absolutely break with SPK positions[41], even contact was forbidden[[42]. In a general short entrie, the more relevant details about SPK would be obscured due iluminating these facts and explanations, therefore at any rate "unduly weighted". Certainly it is not irrelevant that the patients of SPK were object of persecution, jail and torture, neither it is less relevant that despite of and against that, SPK still exists and remains its struggle until nowdays. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise, but Wikipedia is set up in such a way that due weight is established by sources, and a significant proportion of sources writing about the SPK cover this aspect. Basically, if Wikipedia follows its basic policies, the article should reflect these sources: [43], [44] (unless sources published later on definitely establish that some of these sources were in error). Where SPK members were subject to persecution, jail and torture, of course this is something the article should cover as well, as is the continued existence of the organisation, but we need to find sources, especially third-party sources. The best thing you and I can do here is to research sources which I can then drop on the Spanish article's talk page. The Google Books and Google News links are the best starting point for that; if you can help me identify the most reliable and well-researched among that lot (above all scholarly sources), I will pass them on and will have a basis for discussion with the Spanish editors. We should focus on identifying third-party sources, as these will be more likely to be adopted by the Spanish editors for sourcing article content. --JN466 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've held back on translating the Spiegel sources so far because they are rather old, written at the time the investigations took place, and I am unclear as to how much the suppositions expressed in these articles were superseded or borne out by later developments. That is always a problem with contemporaneous sources; we should ideally use sources written later on, that analyse events retrospectively. --JN466 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I think there is no lack of sources for your concerns. About this[45] I already gave these [46][47] sources which denie those. Also this source [48] denies the relation between RAF and SPK and a lot of twaddle; also this one denies RAF-SPK conection:[49] and support all the facts of my proposal, and I also provided non-SPK sources for persecution, jail, torture:[50][51] against SPK. Those sources were provided in the references of my proposal as you can check again. On the other hand: are you having any trouble or doubt about SPK current existence? That should be a consequence of those non-SPK sources claiming and spreading twaddle about SPK, therefore, not your fault, and since you learned the SPK-internet-site, then should not be a trouble too, at least not for you. Let me ask: if there are a lot of sources [52] which show that RAF-Ulrike Meinhof studied in University of Münster, why it is not reflected in the respective wikipedia article [53] in a statement in its first or second paragraph like "some members of this university became guerilla-RAF-members"? But if so, perhaps I would clap laughing, it means: certainly I will remain convinced that sort of idiotism must not be used in the SPK article. So let return and focus on SPK and let aside and don't you worry due my last (anti)rethoric question against high private and established institutions such as pride and arrogance. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the article on the University of Münster lists Ulrike Meinhof as one of its "notable alumni". Truth is, she is listed at the very end of the list, whereas all the other notable alumni are ordered alphabetically, so I think I will correct that bit. Sabbut (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you just edited your post as though you had originally meant to ask for something else.

Your original question is indeed thus:

Let me ask: if there are a lot of sources [51] which show that RAF-Ulrike Meinhof studied in University of Münster, why it is not reflected in the respective wikipedia article [52]? (source: [54], where [52] is the article on the University of Münster)

And my answer was clear: the article about the University of Münster indeed has Ulrike Meinhof as one of its notable alumni.

Now you have changed your question into this:

...in a statement in its first or second paragraph like "some members of this university became guerilla-RAF-members"?

Well, the thing is, it is not notable that some members of the University of Münster became terrorists if said terrorists are a negligible proportion among all of the University of Münster's former students, similar to the proportion you will find among people with a different educative background. This seems not to be true if you take into account the proportion of members of the SPK who later became members of the RAF, which is significantly much higher than the proportion you will find among people from other backgrounds. According to sources, it seems pretty much clear that their affiliation to the SPK had a significant role in their later affiliation to the RAF.

I will keep lurking here from time to time waiting for any news. Please do not try to hide my last answers in a different section. And please ask the SPK website's admins to remove any threat against the Spanish Wikipedia's admins. Thank you. Sabbut (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on SPK

Hi Jayen, let us back to our discussion about SPK entrie:

Just to remember, this was my last comment:

Let me ask: what has SPK to do with the RAF members notoriety? Is this the RAF entrie or the SPK one? At any rate, none from SPK "did move across" to the RAF. If few from SPK were later a member of RAF, it happened after SPK was self-dissolved, be it years later. And every RAF member, even those who years before were SPK, but any member of RAF was compelled to absolutely break with SPK positions[55], even contact was forbidden[[56], and you could clearly contrast the warfare of the SPK, patients figthing pro-illness and against doctors, being absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors and health. In a general short entrie, the more relevant details about SPK would be obscured due iluminating these facts and explanations and comparisons between SPK and RAF, therefore at any rate "unduly weighted". Certainly it is not irrelevant that the patients of SPK were object of persecution, jail and torture, neither it is less relevant that despite of and against that, SPK still exists and remains its struggle until nowdays. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was your last comment:

I sympathise, but Wikipedia is set up in such a way that due weight is established by sources, and a significant proportion of sources writing about the SPK cover this aspect. Basically, if Wikipedia follows its basic policies, the article should reflect these sources: [57], [58] (unless sources published later on definitely establish that some of these sources were in error). Where SPK members were subject to persecution, jail and torture, of course this is something the article should cover as well, as is the continued existence of the organisation, but we need to find sources, especially third-party sources. The best thing you and I can do here is to research sources which I can then drop on the Spanish article's talk page. The Google Books and Google News links are the best starting point for that; if you can help me identify the most reliable and well-researched among that lot (above all scholarly sources), I will pass them on and will have a basis for discussion with the Spanish editors. We should focus on identifying third-party sources, as these will be more likely to be adopted by the Spanish editors for sourcing article content. --JN466 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've held back on translating the Spiegel sources so far because they are rather old, written at the time the investigations took place, and I am unclear as to how much the suppositions expressed in these articles were superseded or borne out by later developments. That is always a problem with contemporaneous sources; we should ideally use sources written later on, that analyse events retrospectively. --JN466 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thus Jayen, I think there is no lack of sources for your concerns in your last comment ("...I sympathise..." [59]). About this[60] I already gave these [61][62] sources which denie those. Also this source [63] denies the relation between RAF and SPK and a lot of twaddle; also this one denies RAF-SPK conection:[64] and support all the facts of my very conservative proposal which is strictly full of facts and empy of any allegation on SPK; and I also provided non-SPK sources with some illustration about histeria, persecution, jail and torture[65][66] against SPK; but there is also mentioned the warfare of the SPK imprisoned patients, figthing pro-illness and against doctors, (Patientenfront) by radical means such as unconditional and unlimited hungerstrike, absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors, health and better confinement conditions, as you could also realize. Certainly those facts were not included in my proposal but they could be read in further reading. All those sources were provided in the references of my proposal as you can check again. On the other hand: are you having any trouble or doubt about SPK current existence? That should be a consequence of those non-SPK sources claiming and spreading twaddle about SPK, therefore, not your fault, and since you learned the SPK-internet-site, then should not be a trouble too, at least not for you. Let me ask: if there are a lot of sources [67] which show that RAF-Ulrike Meinhof studied in University of Münster, why it is not reflected in the respective wikipedia article [68] in a statement in its first or second paragraph like "some members of this university became guerilla-RAF-members"? But if so, perhaps I would clap laughing, it means: certainly I will remain convinced that sort of idiotism must not be used in the SPK article as being used for those sources to imply false allegations and false accusations against SPK, thus misleading the readers with garbage. So let return and focus on SPK and let aside and don't you worry due my last (anti)rethoric question against high private and established institutions such as pride and arrogance. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It would indeed be ridiculous to mention in the first or second paragraph that some of the alumni of the University of Münster became terrorist if there is only one notable example. It would also be contrary to NPOV, as you could also argue that some of the alumni became notable architects, lawyers, mathematicians, writers, singers, poets, businesspeople and the like. To put emphasis on only one of the outcomes among notable alumni of the University is to add an unnecessary and unacceptable bias to an otherwise perfectly acceptable article. As for the previous versions of that question of yours, they have already been answered by me at the previous subsection. Sabbut (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And yes Jayen, I also found a waste of time translating those Spiegel articles for the same reasons I exposed. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to SPK

Hi Jayen, let us back to our discussion about SPK entrie:

Just to remember, this was my last comment:

Let me ask: what has SPK to do with the RAF members notoriety? Is this the RAF entrie or the SPK one? At any rate, none from SPK "did move across" to the RAF. If few from SPK were later a member of RAF, it happened after SPK was self-dissolved, be it years later. And every RAF member, even those very few who years before were SPK, but any member of RAF was compelled to absolutely break with SPK positions[69], even contact was forbidden[[70], and you could clearly contrast the warfare of the SPK, patients figthing pro-illness and against doctors, being absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors and health. In a general short entrie, the more relevant details about SPK would be obscured due iluminating these facts and explanations and comparisons between SPK and RAF, therefore at any rate "unduly weighted". Certainly it is not irrelevant that the patients of SPK were object of persecution, jail and torture, neither it is less relevant that despite of and against that, SPK still exists and remains its struggle until nowdays. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was your last comment:

I sympathise, but Wikipedia is set up in such a way that due weight is established by sources, and a significant proportion of sources writing about the SPK cover this aspect. Basically, if Wikipedia follows its basic policies, the article should reflect these sources: [71], [72] (unless sources published later on definitely establish that some of these sources were in error). Where SPK members were subject to persecution, jail and torture, of course this is something the article should cover as well, as is the continued existence of the organisation, but we need to find sources, especially third-party sources. The best thing you and I can do here is to research sources which I can then drop on the Spanish article's talk page. The Google Books and Google News links are the best starting point for that; if you can help me identify the most reliable and well-researched among that lot (above all scholarly sources), I will pass them on and will have a basis for discussion with the Spanish editors. We should focus on identifying third-party sources, as these will be more likely to be adopted by the Spanish editors for sourcing article content. --JN466 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've held back on translating the Spiegel sources so far because they are rather old, written at the time the investigations took place, and I am unclear as to how much the suppositions expressed in these articles were superseded or borne out by later developments. That is always a problem with contemporaneous sources; we should ideally use sources written later on, that analyse events retrospectively. --JN466 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thus Jayen, I think there is no lack of sources for your concerns in your last comment ("...I sympathise..." [73]). About this[74] I already gave these [75][76] sources which denie those. Also this source [77] denies the relation between RAF and SPK and a lot of twaddle; also this one denies RAF-SPK conection:[78] and support all the facts of my very conservative proposal which is strictly full of facts and empy of any allegation on SPK; and I also provided non-SPK sources with some illustration about histeria, persecution, jail and torture[79][80] against SPK; but there is also mentioned the warfare of the SPK imprisoned patients, figthing pro-illness and against doctors, (Patientenfront) by radical means such as unconditional and unlimited hungerstrike, absolutely different than RAF crying for doctors, health and better confinement conditions, as you could also realize. Certainly those facts were not included in my proposal but they could be read in further reading. All those non-SPK sources were provided in the references of my proposal as you can check again. Therefore certainly I will remain convinced that sort of ridiculous idiotism: forcing to include the names of the very few ex-SPK who later on became RAF members, must not be used in the SPK article, because it is being used by the respective authors just to imply false allegations and false accusations against SPK, thus misleading the readers with garbage. For example and on the other hand: are you having any trouble or doubt about SPK current existence? That should be a consequence of those non-SPK sources claiming and spreading twaddle about SPK, therefore, not your fault, and since you learned the SPK-internet-site, then should not be a trouble too, at least not for you. And yes Jayen, I also found a waste of time translating those Spiegel articles for the same reasons I exposed. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Claudio. Sabbut, there are some worthwhile sources here among those that Claudio has brought to the table, and they do bear his points out; notably [81] ("It was falsely linked to the Red Army Fraction"), [82] (pp. 480--481), and [83] ("By all accounts—including the admission last week of a West German Embassy spokesman in Washington—SPC was fairly harmless.") The publishers (SAGE_Publications, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group) are highly reputable academic publishers. The continued existence of the "Patientenfront", the SPK's 1973 reincarnation, was attested to here. I'm looking into some other sources as well that provide a retrospective analysis, but Claudio's sources present the strongest statements I have found so far contradicting the alleged SPK/RAF linkage that was popular in press reports at the time. --JN466 02:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, a source attributed to the SPK like this one Claudio presented ("SPK Krankheit im Recht", which is also advertised here) would naturally deny any link between SPK and RAF.

On the other hand, the quote "By all accounts—including the admission last week of a West German Embassy spokesman in Washington—SPC was fairly harmless" does not really mean that much. I would agree that it was "fairly harmless" as per [84] (Global Terrorism Database, endorsed by the University of Maryland), which only mentions a few violent incidents attributed to the SPK, but that's not the same thing as saying it was "harmless".

As for Ian Parker's book, I would take a bit of caution before believing everything it says, at least when it comes to the book saying that the accusations of terrorism were false. From his own critical view as a Marxist and a proponent of critical psychology, Ian Parker may have been more inclined to believe the SPK's stance than the German government's. It could be argued that the book written by Jillian Becker (a right-wing journalist) is "counterinsurgency tripe", but it can also be noted that third sources which say that very thing about Becker's book do not readily dismiss it, at least when it comes to facts and figures.

I will keep looking for additional English- and Spanish-language sources. However, I think it would be of great help to find a contemporary newspaper article on the SPK. Perhaps the Der Spiegel notice from 1973, a year after the incident, could be of help, but an article written in the 21st century would probably be more useful. However, I will have to consider any self-published source such as the aforementioned book ("SPK Krankheit im Recht") and others that Claudio has proposed as more than likely propaganda. Sabbut (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Jayen. I would also advise you to check from time to time the history of your talk page. ClaudioSantos has this nasty habit of trying to hide my comments in a different section from his own, probably so as to prevent you from reading them. For example, he just striked all his text from a previous subsection (which had been answered by me) and copied it again in a new section. He also likes editing his own comments, arguably so that it seems that I'm answering to something else than his own comment.

Although my last comments were more a reply to Claudio than a reply to you, I think they also provide some insight on the subject, and they should definitely belong to the same section. Claudio was just blocked for a couple of days last night because of his attitude, although he might like to explain it here with more detail once his block has expired. Sabbut (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we can exclude any self-published sources making potentially self-serving claims from our consideration, per WP:SELFPUB (or its Spanish equivalent). I am also not suggesting that we believe Parker, or any of the other sources for that matter, but we do need to take note of reliable sources that take alternative views. Where matters are contested, and there are various truth claims, we need at the very least to attribute statements to their authors – say exactly who says what – and cannot present contentious statements as fact. Claudio has delivered some reliably published independent third-party sources above (I would encourage him to use this opportunity to add more of them, especially third-party academic sources), and we should factor these sources in to arrive at something that is NPOV. I am currently looking at [85], a retrospective in a German historical journal, but it only has snippet view in Google Books, which makes it difficult and time-consuming to get the whole text.

I am aware that the thread is a little chaotic and my orange bar pops up quite a lot, but I don't think I have missed any of your posts. In the section above I noted that Claudio took care to only strike out his own comments, and leave yours intact, which I think means there was no ill intent; and he is welcome to refine his posts prior to your or my having replied to them (although note that posts should not be changed after they have been replied to, per WP:REDACT). --JN466 09:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Claudio, moving other editors' talk page posts is not considered good form; it's best to leave them in the place where the other editor originally put them. Best, --JN466 10:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

El Colectivo Socialista de Pacientes (en alemán Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv, y conocido por sus siglas SPK) fue un colectivo de pacientes fundado en Heidelberg en febrero de 1970, por el Paciente de Frente Wolfgang Huber, WD, Dr.médico. El programa del SPK era hacer de la enfermedad un arma y continúa activo. El SPK ha surgido del Frente de Pacientes, existente desde 1965. El SPK ha declarado su auto-disolución en julio de 1971 como retirada estratégica. Luego el SPK ha continuado existiendo sin interrupción como Frente de Pacientes, actualmente como PF/SPK(H). Para el SPK la enfermedad es la realidad existente innegable, enfermedad efectiva, y es causada por el sistema capitalista. El SPK lucha a favor de la enfermedad, a la que considera la anticipación de la especie humana, y lucha contra el capitalismo y contra todos los médicos a quienes considera la clase dominante del sistema. La más conocida entre numerosas publicaciones del PF/SPK(H), es el libro SPK – Hacer de la enfermedad un arma, con un prólogo del fundador del SPK, Huber, WD, y un prólogo de Jean-Paul Sartre. Algunas de sus publicaciones se encuentran en su página oficial www.spkpfh.de

PF/SPK(H), Text for entries on the SPK in the Encyclopedias of Brockhaus, Duden, etc.-- PF/SPK(H), Propuesta para un texto sobre el SPK. Un resumen-- SPK/PF(H), Colectivo Socialista de Pacientes (SPK) Frente de Pacientes (PF), Lista de fechas, en resumen--SPK-Hacer de la enfermedad un arma, 1997, ISBN 3-926491-21-3-- Trevor Blake, SPK - Krankheit Im Recht, ISBN: 3926491264.-- Ian Parker, Deconstructing psychopathology, ISBN=9780803974814 p.120 -- [Spandler, H.1992. To Make an army out of Illness: a history of the Socialist Patients Collective (SPK). Heidelberg 1970/71/Asylum 6(4)]-- Félix Guattari, Molecular revolution: psychiatry and politics, 1984, ISBN: 0140551603, p.67-68--Gary Genosko, Deleuze and Guattari: critical assessments of leading philosophers, p.480-481,798

SPK

From [86]

I've reverted your editions to the lead despite of your grammar and style could be better than mine. Nothing against you nor against your efforts (thanks!), but I found some inaccuarcies in your edition, that I will discuss here before changing the lead. ¿Ok? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The SPK's illness concept is not a concept of mental illness, if you read all its documentation you will easily find that SPK emphatically reject a distinction between so called mental' and 'physical' illnesses. They even empghatically said: illness as being one although divided by medical-means into illneses.
• In the SPK you and even the police could find books from Marx, Engels, Hegel, even about guerrilla, and even from the psychiater Wilhelm Reich, but not even one book or text about anti-psyichiatry and that issue was never discussed in the SPK. The allegedely relation between SPK and 'antipsychiatry movement' has been emphatically rejected also by the SPK. SPK even attacks the anti-psyichiatry movement as a reformist medical-movement, leaded by doctors who remained being doctors and part of the iatro-capitalism.
• SPK emphatically and expresively refers to Illness against iatro-capitalism. It is a basic part of their ideology and its illness concept, as they consider the fundamental identity/contradiction being precisely Illness against capitalism. Replacing the word capitalism with "diseased society" misrepresents SPK ideology. And also you will find that SPK repeatedly claims to be a pro illness collective as being the core of its revolutionary concept, so I think it should not be supressed.

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• • You're right about the point with illness not being restricted to mental illness. That was my mistake, and should be corrected. --JN466 17:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I accept that the SPK does not and did not associate itself with the anti-psychiatry movement; so I agree that phrase ("A part of the anti-psychiatry movement...") should be removed. What is true is that they received some support from members of the anti-psychiatry movement, notably Foucault; I think that is okay to state. Would you agree? --JN466 17:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• • There is a reference to an "ill society" on the spk website (in a piece by Sartre, however, rather than Huber). Parker has a reference to an "insane world" here; would you say that the summary is inaccurate? I don't mind limiting it to capitalism, if that is what the SPK themselves said; but didn't the other elements Parker mentions play into it as well? --JN466 17:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So, fixing my blunders (thanks for pointing them out!), would this be okay as a lead?

---

The Socialist Patients' Collective (in German ''Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv, or SPK) was a patients' collective founded in Heidelberg in February 1970, by Wolfgang Huber, a doctor at the Heidelberg Psychiatric Clinic; it emerged from the Patients' Front which had existed since 1965.

The SPK considered mental and physical illness to be caused by the capitalist system, and viewed it as an appropriate response to such a system; and it saw doctors as the system's ruling class. Its declared aim was, and remains, to "turn illness into a weapon", a vision that attracted support from intellectuals and anti-psychiatrists like Jean-Paul Sartre and Michel Foucault. Under pressure from German law enforcement over alleged terrorist links, the SPK declared its self-dissolution in July 1971, "as a strategic withdrawal"; Huber and his wife were arrested and jailed. Since then, the SPK has continued its activities as the Patients' Front, today the PF/SPK(H).

---

--JN466 17:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

About Foucault: what I know and is documented is certainly J.P. Sartre supported and encouraged decisevely SPK, and he participated and encouraged the counter-investigations on the SPK-trials, and he even wrote a support preface to one of the SPK books, indeed a very important book containing the core of SPK concepts. I also know and it is documented that Foucault and others, signed a press declaration when some SPK patients were imprissoned, but except that, he did nothing else; but it is also documented that some years later, Foucault did nothing but remained sat when some PF patients were attacked in a medical congress were PF patients made public for the first time one of its fundamental texts (Iatrocracy on a world wide scale [87]). -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree if we do not stigmatize Sartre as beeing a "leftist intellectual"? but perhaps you would find a better anecdote to know that Sartre was so "crazy" (for whom?) that not only he did supported SPK practice and concepts, but he also did rejected a Nobel price!!! But I am not suggesting to include that label in this article. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with dropping the leftist descriptor. :) Sartre is quite well known enough and has his own biography; deleted above. That there was support from Foucault, at least at one time, is mentioned here; as his is a well-known name, I think it might be worth including, even if Sartre's support was somewhat more substantial than Foucault's. --JN466 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so, let me meditate about your last proposed version and I will answer as soon as possible. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no rush. :) --JN466 18:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

---

The Socialist Patients' Collective (in German Sozialistisches Patientenkollektiv, and known as the SPK) was a patients' collective founded in Heidelberg in February 1970, by Dr. Wolfgang Huber. The kernel of the SPK's ideological program is summated in the slogan Turn Illness into a weapon, which remains actively practiced. The SPK emerged from the Patients' Front, that was founded in 1965. The SPK declared its self-dissolution in July 1971 as a strategic withdrawal but the SPK continued to exist as Patients' Front, which is currently known as the Patients' Front/Socialist Patients' Collective (PF/SPK(H)). For the SPK, illness really exists as an undeniable fact and it is caused by the capitalist system. The SPK is pro illness, in favor of illness, considering illness as the protest against capitalism and considering illness the anticipation of the human species that does not yet exist but that should be created through illness. The SPK fights against capitalism and against all doctors considering them to be the ruling class of the system and poisonous to the human species. The most widely known text of the PF/SPK(H) is the book SPK - Turn illness into a weapon with prefaces by both the founder of the SPK, Wolfgang Huber, and Jean-Paul Sartre.

---

Some off-topic nonsense, summary: some wikipedians have accused of terrorism the SPK-patients. Grounds: wikipedians have revealed in wikipedia SPK-patient's names, professions, pictures, etc. against their will and/or linked their data to hostile(hostile), mendacious(false), spurious(non-genuine) chatter against them and against SPK. For their part, the SPK has NOT revealed NOR published some wikipedians' names, professions, pictures, etc. which has been already revealed by the own wikipedians to anyone all around the WEB included the own wikipedia.

Nonsense ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Talk:SPK (edit | [[Talk:Talk:SPK|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Members of the Red Army Faction (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Members of the Red Army Faction|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think a third opinion is necessary as I'm involved in a situation that has been degenerating into an edit war. The user ClaudioSantos seems to be pretty much a single-purpose account on behalf of the Socialist Patients' Collective (also known as the SPK). Just to give a little context on the SPK, it is a group which had already caused a fair amount of trouble both in the Spanish and in the English Wikipedia projects around 2004-2006 through vandalism, trolling (like in [88], in Spanish), propaganda and false claims (for example, [89], answered here - I could add more links if you want, although they're not really central to the subject I'd like to talk about). The SPK insists that any material linking it, or even some of its historical members, to the Red Army Fraction, must be removed. WP:BLP is usually cited as a reason. As for ClaudioSantos himself, he has been using unnecessarily strong wording towards me (for instance, I can quote from this single message, [90], up to five disparaging statements: "seems not even able to make a simple sum", "unable to read and understand this", "copiers like this little Sabbut", "desired toy", "fetishism?"). He also tends to use terms such as "libel" and "defamation" (for example, [91]), which have a specific meaning and could be thought of as a legal threat, which is not allowed. There are issues on the articles on the Socialist Patients' Collective (which, in my opinion, ClaudioSantos has pretty much changed into an advertisement) and on members of the SPK such as Sieglinde Hofmann and Brigitte Mohnhaupt, as well as cross-wiki issues which may be relevant or not here in the English language Wikipedia. All of this is a pretty long discussion. However, I will now move to a more specific subject, which is the reason I'm writing this message. That is Talk:SPK. Here goes the story: ClaudioSantos restored a text containing a legal threat that had already been erased several times in 2005 ([92], [93], [94], [95], [96]) and again by me recently [97]. Once I pointed out that it was in fact a legal threat and that it didn't belong in a talk page, he replaced the quote with a simple link to the specific edition of that talk page containing the legal threat, claiming that "Libelous material causes serious damage to living people. Aggresively warning on libelous material is not a threat, even per WP:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat" [98]. Once I pointed out WP:LEGAL another time, he changed his wording into "Hostile and mendacious material against patients from SPK, causes serious damage to living people" [99]. After that, once I pointed out that there was nothing that could possibly be qualified as "hostile" or "mendacious" in SPK (the page associated to Talk:SPK, which is a disambiguation page), he reverted the whole discussion [100]... but moved his claims to Talk:Members of the Red Army Faction instead (see history). That talk page already contains pretty much the same kind of accusations, so basically repeating the same message one more time would seem unnecessary. Also, trying to include a legal threat by any means is something I would qualify as "trying to game the system". In fact, I would qualify his attitude throughout this story in the same way. So...I revert his message, he reverts my revert and so on. So now I decide to stop a moment, avoid getting into a full-fledged edit war and ask for a third opinion on this mess. Sabbut (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC) It appears to me that this user has certainly crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior. In my opinion, their overall behavior of making personal attacks, nasty assumptions of bad faith (accusing you of being paid for POV pushing), flagrantly throwing around comments that lawyers and judges are involved with the matter, re-adding a message that had been taken and removed as a legal threat several times in the past, etc., constitutes disruption. I have warned them for the behavior, and if it continues, return here and I will report it to ANI, or you can do so yourself; either option is recommended, especially given the user's history of disruption both here and at the Spanish Wikipedia. Swarm X 20:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC) User:Sabbut is not being personally attacked but certainly User:Sabbut published in wikipedia the identity of a patient against his will and with out his permission and then used his privileges to delete his contribution[101]. Here I don't want to remember who was the user who abusively published also his self-made picture of the building of Krankheit Im Recht (illness in right - pathopractic with lawyers, part of the PF/SPK(H)); but certainly User:Sabbut published a materia claiming false allegations against SPK claiming theese people were terrorists, an allegation that finally had to be hide, as it was demonstrated that terrorism is a crime (legal threat?) that did not even exist in the time of the trials against SPK, so it was certainly defamatory content that should be deleted per WP:BLP (as this policy explicity says "defamatory material", is it a legal threat? am I legal threating when I just refers in the same words of this policy? whatever). User:Sabbut published contentious material dealing with living people but without any reference and avoid this material to be deleted, even against the WP policies about living people although he was warned that it was causing serious damage to this people. What you should consider a legal threat, a harrasment and a very serious misconduct is that an user has accused current people of PF/SPK as being terrorists [102], a friend of Sabbut who Sabbut recomend to be asked about "my behaviour". Well, precisely these users together with some other users used their admin privileges to expulse me from WP.es precisely because I agressively -as recomended by WP-policies- deleted contentious material against living people (see WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Unsourced material that for example accused people of terrorism but material that for instance finally they deleted from wikipedia.es but after they assumed bad faith and accused of sock-puppetry another user because he also noticed that I was right and also deleted the contentious unreferenced material (see [103] and until now they even desetimated the proposals of this other user to correct the wikipedia article about SPK in the es.wikipedua. Therefore, the minimal to do is to warn that a content is causing serious damage to this people and is perhaps just a bad joke to assumme that I am threating anyone. Actually the article about red army faction members has an advice warning that it is very bad referenced although it deals a lot of times on living people, even the part dealing with SPK has a lot of names without any reference and in the talk page I published[104] abundant reliable-verifiable sources (collected also with user:Jayen466) that demonstrates the current material published by user:Sabbut on SPK, is mendacious (false) and spurious (not-genuine) and as warned by that people, it is hostile because it is causing serious damage to that living people. At any rate, now I will not make any edit on those talk pages exactly as I am not doing any edition on the respective articles since weeks. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC) That sounds fine to me. Swarm X 00:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC) In fact, I once mentioned the name of a member of the SPK. Truth is, at least one article and talk page of the Spanish Wikipedia had been spammed many times in 2004-2005 with propaganda articles signed by the very same person, so I really don't understand how mentioning that name could possibly be harmful for that person. Anyway, once I was warned of this possible harm I edited my original message and hid the corresponding diffs.[105] If I hadn't been able to do that, I would have asked anyone else. So there's no need to assume bad faith. As for Magister ([106]), whom I personally don't know, he did not call the SPK a bunch of terrorists. Rather, he described some of its tactics as "terrorist-like", that is, tactics that could reasonably be used by terrorists. Namely, threatening to reveal the real names of two fellow Wikipedia editors, as well as their addresses, of course without their consent, in a message published in 2005 and which has remained untouched since then.[107] I don't find anything wrong with Magister's message. Maybe a little harsh, but not nearly as harsh as the ones Claudio usually writes. Finally, as for Claudio's "proofs" that SPK had nothing to do with the RAF, which are listed at the end of this section, they're mostly self-published works (so I would never consider those as valid references) or are in German (a language I don't understand, so I wouldn't reasonably evaluate and use those myself, although I'm of course open to reading any translation of said references). One more reference [108] says the SPK was "fairly harmless" (which does not really mean anything relevant to Wikipedia, as "fairly harmless" is not the same as "totally harmless"). Sabbut (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Well, now I certainly realized that Sabbut's tactic of publishing in wikipedia the first name and the last name (never published in wikipedia) of a SPK-patient, and that against the concerned patient's will, it is a tactic considered by Sabbut as a "terrorist-like tactic" and I also realized that Sabbut thinks it is a reasonable consideration. I have nothing else to comment to that. For the rest, about the sources I also will not add anything because there was said enough since months ago, even by other users than me (see for example: [109][110][111]), showing that Sabbut was unreasonably rejecting well reliable and verifiable sources in order to take into account some dubious sources claiming the demonstrated false allegations against the SPK-patients, thus in order to force that point of view hostile, mendacious and spurious against those living people. Now Sabbut is just repeating and repeating his same chatter, although he has felt free to delete my comments [112] precisely saying that I am repeating the same allegations. And the last he's done immediately after I already announced I will not do more editions in that talk page; should I assume bad faith on someone-else who could be suspecting that Sabbut is trying to instigate me?. About me, what I suspect is that I will not have to answer again to any Sabbut comment here, as I suspect he will just repeat his same repeated things. - ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Right, it wasn't necessary for Sabbut to continue this, ClaudioSantos said they will not comment on the talk page anymore and I would encourage both users to disengage from each other completely. Swarm X 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Just to point out a couple of things: The first and last name of that member of the SPK were in fact published several times in the Spanish Wikipedia, presumably by that same person or by any other vandal wanting to impose the SPK's view on health and other subjects onto the Spanish Wikipedia. Once I realized that my own mention of that same name was unnecessary and could be harmful, I deleted it. Others cannot say the same: the threat to reveal Ascánder and Tirithel's real identities and addresses is still published on the SPK's website. Knowing this, no, revealing a name of someone who had already revealed it himself several times in the very same medium, and then hiding that same name just in case it could be harmful, cannot reasonably be considered a terrorist-like tactic as Claudio has just suggested. In any case, an error that was reverted, and that's all there is to it. However, threatening to reveal the identity and address of two people against their will to anyone wanting to know, and doing so for six years straight, can reasonably be qualified as something criminals or terrorists would do. I think this part is pretty simple: if the members of the SPK are concerned about their threats being called "terrorist-like tactics", maybe they should consider removing those threats? For my part, I don't think there's anything more to say (or "chatter", as Claudio just said), so I will end the discussion here. Thanks for your help. Sabbut (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Therefore I have to documment here the thing, not to repeat nothing. As far as I can read and understand, the SPK-patient never mentioned his complete name at wikipedia; anyone is allowed to confirm by him/herself, as there is the archive: [113]. As I said and he confirmed, it was user:Sabbut who published the complete patient's name in wikipedia, and Sabbut is also the one claiming that revealing that sort of data is a "terrorist-like tactic". For a change, also as far as I can read and understand, in the SPK-site there was never revealed nor even re-published the data (names, jobs, places, etc.) of those wikipedians (Ascánder, JorgeGG) mentioned by Sabbut. Moreover, actually in the SPK-site says nothing about revealing those wikipedian's data there, but it says the SPK knows this data, so it is allowed to provide those wikipedian' data to anyone interested (to anyone affected? to any one needy? to the bosses? to the authorities? who are allowed to reject an authority request on revealing private data? the wikipedians? the doctors? the patients? please don't worry, I am just wondering). But actually nobody had nor has to worry about revealing the mentioned wikipedians' data, because their data, even included the very illustrated data of the mentioned Magister ("terrorist-tactics"), is already revealed in a lot of well known very public sites all around the web, included the own wikipedia[114]. Therefore also Sabbut is allowed to provide those links full of details and even pictures, to anyone interested or needy. Well, just to finish, it seems I had to answer again here, as emerged some new details to clarify. But I hope that I have provided at least new data, so the only thing I have to repeat here would be that: these paragraphs bringed again to my mind the already mentioned fact that some years ago, one wikipedian actually published at wikipedia her/his selfmade picture[115] (spying?) of Krankheit-Im_Recht-SPK-building, trying to illustrate an hostile, mendacious and spuirious article against SPK-people. But let me introduce data non-mentioned here: later on that article was complemented by another wikipedian who published for the first time in wikipedia, the complete name[116] of a current SPK-lawyer inserted in a hostile paragraph which recently even ashamed another user[117]. Fortunatelly that hostile paragraph was corrected later on, of course not by the perpetrator. Perhaps I have revealed too much data, but now I can say, this is my last comment here in this thread. I don't mind if this discussion is closed. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Just to point out one more thing (Sorry, but I feel I have the right to defend myself from Claudio's extremely nasty accusations). Claudio says: "Moreover, actually in the SPK-site says nothing about revealing those wikipedian's data there, but it says the SPK knows this data, so it is allowed to provide those wikipedian' data to anyone interested" It's quite nice to know that it's acceptable and justifiable to threat to reveal Wikipedians' true identities to anyone who asks for such information ("anyone" means "anyone" - not only "the authority" or whatsoever), but if it's the name of a vandal from the SPK (who already revealed it himself -OK, only partly- in Wikipedia [118] and fully in the same website [119] where he boasts about his acts of vandalism in Wikipedia [120]) which is at stake, then not only is it not acceptable to reveal it (something I can understand, which is why I reverted and hid my edit just a little later), but it's also not acceptable to revert and hide it (What should I have done, then - crucify myself?) Revealing Ingeborg Muhler's name is also wrong according to him, so maybe the name should be deleted once and for all, I suppose. On the other hand, suggesting people are spying and adding yet again the words "hostile", "spurious" and "mendacious", as well as "perpetrator" (referring to a Wikipedia editor), is one more major breach of wikiquette. One more. Sabbut (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Last comment Last comment ... Note - ClaudioSantos, you've indicated in nine different edit summaries that you had made your "last/last comment here/last comment in this thread". I'm kind of not believing that the one above is truly your last comment either, you know? Last comment meansno further comments after you make your last one. Either make your last comment and mean it, or don't continue to say it's your last comment when it clearly isn't. It appears to some as disingenuous. Doctalk19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC) sorry, I meant: when I had finished that comment then it would be my last one in this thread. Before anyone answer it I've been adding some links, wording, etc. to that comment, and sometimes the changes do not appear because I've had to delete the entire comment and rewrote it with the changes. It was because of thecnical matters, as I have to edit from a sort of mobile. But it was essentially one and only one comment: the one which would be the last in this thread. Sorry if it was some confusing to read "last comment" too many times. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Now, wasn't that easier and more appropriate than deleting what I wrote twice? Sheesh...Doctalk 20:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Well, I wanted not to add more noise to the topic. So I wrong assumed your permission to delete it as I was answering your request on your talk page and it was off-topic.--ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Refactoring for relevance: ... Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion. ... WP:TPO#Others.27_comments

Topic ban expansion

This is a summary of my recent edits at wikipedia:

1. I have provided verifiable and academic reliable sources for the following facts, which were already included by other users at Margaret Sanger's article: she, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an advocate and supporter of eugenics and she expressed that birth control like eugenics sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit". She also supported coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating, and she recommended that immigration exclude those "whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race," and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.

2. In the euthanasia article, I have included and referenced the following historical fact: the euthanasia movement was intertwined and linked with the eugenics movement.

3. In the euthanasia article, I have included and referenced the following historical fact: the american euthanasia movement supported euthanasia arguing eugenics grounds and they also supported coercive euthanasia.

I will not discuss anything about those facts, nor I will argue for their inclution in wikipedia. Indeed, those facts are part of the mentioned wikipedia-articles and they were accepted as well referenced facts, despite of certain structural resistence from some users. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the ANI discussion - There is community consensus for an expanded topic ban on your editing. The exact terms are:

As enacted: ClaudioSantos is to be topic banned for a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects.

The topic ban expires on April 12, 2012.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

False, there was not such consensus. If decision was based on 9 users who have supported the ban, then suggestions and opinions from 7 users were junked, they who opposed the ban. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Combativeness is not what is needed. Self-criticism is. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I can not agree. Criticism is superfluos, because what is not coherent to its concept, soon or later collapses. What is needed here is to mention that criticism is based on and is coming from capitalism, which is the underlying and incoherent structure, that deserves all combativeness in order to collapse it, better now than too late. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum> If self-criticism is indeed a philosophical, political and therapeutical practice, then it has to be mentioned that WP:NOTSOAPBOX prohibits any user to promote its philosophical, political or therapeutical causes and opinions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Some bubble tea for standing up to an admin! Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 15:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Question you may have missed

I do agree: these are double-standars and Jimbo encourages them. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not encourage double standards at all. Can you explain to me why you said this?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(from my talk page)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Judgment

Then I must certify an absolute absence of administration just replaced by idiotic terms like "trolling". Case closed. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Corollary: one should not worry at all if all the wikipedia turns into a community of 9 users against 7 users. If one chose to add or subtract those numbers is irrelevant but a case of a negligible quantity or a huge soap bubble. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine dining

Was the philosopher Diogenes eating lentils when he saw the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by means of flattering the king.

Aristippus said to him: "If you had learned to be submissive to the king, you would not have to eat that crap of lentils."

To which Diogenes replied: "If you had learned to eat lentils, you would not have to flatter the king."

From: El canto del pájaro by Anthony de Mello.

Hey!

Love the sig. Nice work. MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ClaudioSantos. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10294679

Civility concern (at Maafa 21 talk page)

Hi, ClaudioSantos.

I believe that at times I have been uncivil (WP:CIV) in my comments within the Maafa 21 talk page, particularly in a few of my responses to Roscelese. I want you to know that I have attempted to address this personal shortcoming at Roscelese's talk page.

God bless!

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your concerns. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Child euthanasia in Nazi Germany

Claudio, I am on the same side as you in utterly condemning the Nazi action, but trying not to write in an overly emotive or repetitive way as well as staying close to the original German wording. Bermicourt (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know you are on the same side condemning the Nazi action, but I think is not overly emotive to call it by its appropiate name. For example, the article about Shoa, refers to Shoa as mass murder and genocide, and surely nobody is claiming to change that wording arguing it is overly emotive or repetitive. So, why the infamous mass murder of hundred of thousands under the guise of euthanasia shall be treated in a different way?. Moreover: historical, academic, periodistic and juridical sources refers to the nazi euthanasia program as massive murder.--ClaudioSantos¿? 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm not going to get excited about it. The main thing for me was to translate the article into English and add to the sum of human knowledge. Bermicourt (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ClaudioSantos. You have new messages at Talk:Right to die.
Message added 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^*poke* 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm The Banner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Philip Nitschke seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 12:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

reverting actions of a blocked sickpuppept evading his block, that has used 9 sockpuppets to circumvent the rules and evade his block, it has nothing to do with a non-neutral point of view. -- --ClaudioSantos¿? 12:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ratel

In all fairness: Indef block appeal for Ratel. The Banner talk 14:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Welcome back. But we do not welcome back your activism. Please leave that at home and only add neutral information, based on reliable sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 08:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Who are "we"? Royal "we" speaks loudly about egotism. Or does it have to do about demons like Legion and such? Well at any rate it really does not matter much to me. ClaudioSantos¿? 13:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ClaudioSantos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ClaudioSantos. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)