2601:643:8B80:1A00:DC6D:63B0:4443:DD2A

March 2023

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Illusion Flame (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Don’t say “your opinions are irrelevant” Illusion Flame (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

are you telling the same thing to the other editor, who questioned my integrity and accused me of biased editing? I was defending my position against baseless and absurd attacks. what I wrote was hardly derogatory. are you upset I said wikipedia needed higher standards of evidence? 2601:643:8B80:1A00:DC6D:63B0:4443:DD2A (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What you wrote was highly derogatory. And u took offense at me in simply asking you for a reliable source? Your only argument was just your own opinion. Despite even Skiiinghistory source was saying that it appeared to be skiing. The opposite of what you were claiming. And that's why I explained that unless you yourself were someone notable and an authority, you cannot edit Wikipedia using your personal opinions alone. Unlike you, I do not use my own opinions alone but actually rely on reliable sources like NYT to back my argument. *a **cave painting depicting skiers hunting in the northern tip of China's Xinjiang region**

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/skiing/skiing-china-cave-paintings.html49.181.232.109 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

And perhaps I was tad too harsh on you by asking you to show credentials. But if you want to remove information, you need to provide more than a personal opinion and political rant to justify it. But you need to show a reliable source to back it. I don't know how to say that without seeming rude. (That wasn't my intention) The truth is nobody can really say they know for certain where skiing first occured. Perhaps the place that started it all, has all its artefacts lost to time. But it is not primarily up to us (the editors) to say what's what. The reality is that Historians are divided on whether it was the ancestors of Sami people in Scandinavia, or the indigenous Tuvan people in Xinjiang Altai mountains. We can simply document it. But you can't just claim that evidence for Altai mountains are proven as wrong without giving any sources to back it up. And Yet you mass removed a lot of information in the article multiple times. I should Maybe improve my tone and try to be more civil. But so do you. 49.181.232.109 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I spelled out my motivations for editing this article clearly and forthrightly. What are yours? I was upfront about why I am here editing the page, but that does not influence the content of my objections or the accuracy of my claims. You have demonstrated on multiple occasions a basic failure to understand what "burden of proof" means. I have no obligation to satisfy your demands, even if they were not clearly spurious. You seem preoccupied with maintaining the pretentious insinuation that China was "first" or the "origin" of skiing, which is an absurd and outlandish claim promulgated by an genocidal authoritarian regime who have a documented history of spreading propaganda in order to sway a corrupt IOC to award them the Winter Olympics to bolster the legitimacy of a totalitarian state. 2601:643:8B80:1A00:DC80:EF75:9F1E:FAA8 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion about talk page discussions

Hi and thank you for your interest in the material presented in History of skiing. I followed your discussion with another IP editor with the feeling that it could have been more constructive on both sides by focusing solely on the issue at hand and omitting references to the other party. Wikipedia:NEGOTIATE offers some good advice on this topic. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree it was not constructive. But that is because the other editor has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't understand the burden of proof or standards of evidence. I am PhD candidate in climate science and physical oceanography, so I definitely do understand those things. I am questioning the validity of claims made ONE MAN, Shan Zhaojian, that have been reported on in places like the NYT, but have not been substantiated. In fact, his first claim about the age of the cave art has been scientifically refuted and proved to be exaggerated by several millennia. Also, the discovery of the Altai rock art "skiers" was made during the campaign by the CCP to host the Winter Olympics in Beijing, and the debunked claim that the carvings were "10,000 years old" was pulled out of thin air, but given that that number has special significance in Chinese culture (but not Tuvan, who's ancestors likely made the carvings in the first place), it is direct evidence that the "findings" of Shan Zhaojiang are politically biased and not reputable. The other editor inserts positive claims in his response, ie "The Altai mountains in Xinjiang might actually be the first place where skiing was done." is NOT supported by evidence with the exception of ONE rock carving, which is itself questionable and does in NO WAY suggests skiing occurred in the region "first". By making that claim, he is pushing the exact CCP propaganda I was concerned enough about to start the thread. 2601:643:8B80:1A00:DC80:EF75:9F1E:FAA8 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, here. The problem is that, even when we as scholars know better, we as Wikipedia editors must rely solely on what is in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We can cite sources that contradict each other and give them due weight, but we can't apply our own insights.

As to having a constructive discussion, the moment we find ourselves using the word "you", we're risking getting an emotional response, rather than a discussion of the topic at hand. More fruitful than duking it out with a fellow editor is to alert others, who have edited the page and those in the pertinent project to join the discussion and come to a Wikipedia:Consensus. When I've done that, I've not always agreed with the outcome, but at least I could take comfort that a process took place that I could live with. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

---