User talk:Emmarade

Emmarade, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Emmarade! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Jay Ramírez

I left a comment regarding your proposed deletion on the talk page of the above article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Cycling team nationalities

I saw that you have been adding flags to Tour de France team. Please be aware that there is consensus in the cycling project that teams do not have nationalities, so I expect that your changes will soon be reverted. Maybe it is better to start a discussion in the cycling project about this, and give reasons why these flags are good. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been a while, but thanks for the tip. I did have a discussion on the infobox template page before my flagification adventure. After your tip I started a discussion on the WikiProject Cycling talk page which had a "no objection to flags" result. Now I've come across the 2009 "objection to flags" on the Consensus decision page and put in a suggestion to change that decision. Emmarade (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Leopard Pro Cycling and Riwal Cycling Team

Thanks for your edits to these articles regarding the merger however according to PCS the continuation of the team is Leopard cycling so the new information goes there and the riwal page ends at the end of 2022. So the leopard page will be present tense about the team. Unless of course you think a whole new article is more suited in which the statement of the merge should be the only thing on these pages about the 2023 season. Thanks Paulpat99 (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paulpat, Thanks for your feedback. The merger news on Wielerflits had not yet resulted in a 2023 team page on UCI.org (LPC x RIW = ???), so I was undecided whether to make a new page or not. A simple mention of the merger on both pages registered the change, and I figured that other editors might be able to tap into different sources and already know what to do.

I don't have a preference for a new page or continuation of LPC. The LPC article is pretty short and a history of sponsor changes can be easily fitted, see for instance Team Jumbo–Visma (men's team) going back to 1984. I can imagine the period 2012-2022 being one of the history chapters like on TJV and then we might use the data on previous versions of LPC to make a seasons template + pages (like in the TJV example below). We could even consider to add a row for the RIWAL seasons with headers in a column on the left side. Emmarade (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Emmarade (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Neither source says it was a fact. One (the original author, the Dutch professor) says it was "likely"; the other says it was a possibility. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

A book full of evidence

This is by no means original research, at most a lack of an immediately accessible source, which happens when one does refer to a traditional book. The RTL news article pinpoints the date of announcement and only reproduces headlines. The book contains more than the usual amount of evidence and is therefore pretty explicit and reliable. Some commentators complained about the abundance of evidence in it... That's because Trudy Dehue is a retired professor of the philosophy of science. She doesn't swiftly deliver conclusions, because in her vision, they are the result of a whole story, of a classification, not the origin of them, but the end product. You need to understand the circumstances, the classification, the ingredients of the product, in order to understand the gravitas of the presented facts.

One of Dehue's more known quotes is Het verdriet van de wetenschap is dat ze slechts wordt bewonderd om wat ze niet kan zeggen. "The sad thing about science is that she only gets admired for what she cannot say." Admiration starts when you say Het zit zo..., "the fact is...". But that's only waving the card of authority, it doesn't prove your point, nor convinces a sceptic viewer, nor shows the vulnerabilities in your research, which is needed to make progress in science. Most journalists pass on quotes and final conclusions, and the RTL report confirms this. The word alledged is used, because this is only the first scientist (authority) that proclaims this conclusion, and news programs don't have the time to do research into each and every matter and check their sources.

This abortion in three historic quotes

Now let's use some accessible info to check Dehue's starting point of her research on the Queen's abortion. Dehue mentions that there are articles in Dutch-Indies newspapers in a digital archive. The usual suspect, Delpher, indeed contains some: The Soerabajiasch Handelsblad published the content of telegrams from The Hague, dated 6 and 7 May 1902, send by Javabode, Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad and Reuter.

• Javabode, 6 Mei 10,15 n. m. (May 6th, 10:15 after noon): Maandag seinde prins Hendrik aan zijn familie dat de kunstbewerking bij de verlossing goed was afgeloopen. On monday prince Henry gave a signal to his family that the artificial working/manipulation during the delivery went well.
• Bat. Nieuwsblad, 7th of May: De operatie aan H. M. verricht, was het gevolg van de noodzakelijkheid, door professor Kouwer ingezien, van een abortus provocatus. Prins Hendrik telegrapheerde Maandag naar Schwerin dat de ontijdige bevalling goed was afgeloopen. The operation on Her Majesty, was due to the necessity, seen by professor Kouwer, of a medically induced abortion. Prince Henry telegraphed on monday to Schwerin that the untimely/premature delivery ended well.
• Reuter's telegram, 5th of May: Wilhelmina prematurely confined six yestereve suspense hetloo palace intense queens cries pain audible far eminent gynaecologist koumers hurriedly summoned forced use instruments extreme exhaustion followed all things considered condition momentarily satisfactory.

We now have three sources which mention an abortion, in different wording. And we have the confirmation that the father of the child told this in a telegram to his family. If we're satisfied with three quotes, that's enough to use the word abortion as a fact, but Dehue takes this as a lead to look into the subject, because this is new to her and it conflicts with the known official Dutch statements at that time.

Summary and forthrightly quotes

In short: Dehue shows how this case looks similar to the 2012 death of Savita Halappanavar: Catholic powerplay with norms and laws that make (in this case) any induced abortion illegal (and lying about it necessary). An infection (typhoid in a time without antibiotics) that leaves the mother no chance to survive if the foetus is not removed. The main difference is of course, that the doctor took action in case of Wilhelmina and saved her life. The doctor arrived at 17:30 and the delivery was at 23:30, so it must have been a horrid evening.

In her interviews Dehue is forthright and does deliver quotes we might use, for instance calling the original official Dutch stsatement a lie, or confirming the fact that it was an abortion:

• De 21-jarige Wilhelmina kreeg in de vroege twintigste eeuw dus wel een abortus en anders was zowel zij zelf als de verhoopte nieuwe Willem van Oranje gestorven. The words dus wel mean thus and indeed. So this translates to "The 21-year-old Wilhelmina did indeed have an abortion in the early 20th century. If she had not, both she and the wished for new William of Orange would have died."

This is not a maybe

The scientist Dehue used the word hoogstwaarschijnlijk. On the probability scale, it's the highest probability there is, on a scale that lacks the word certainty, because we're not talking about math. Hoogstwaarschijnlijk is not merely a probably (waarschijnlijk), likely (goed mogelijk), possibly (mogelijk) and certainly not a maybe (misschien). Using the words This may have been an abortion is a false representation of what we now know as the highest probable view, in layman's terms: reliable facts.

My original post was done with the idea that I could easily find a podcast, which I heard around the time of publication of the book, and use it and a few more articles as an extra reference. The podcast convinced me of the quality of the research, but I didn't succeed in finding it and waited for the time do a proper search. In the mean time I did find and listened to a bunch of podcasts, but not the one I remembered. They confirm and expand upon the things mentioned in the reffered to articles.

Emmarade (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

PS:

• The article in national newspaper AD was published in a series of regional newspapers as well, like De Gelderlander.
• ILFU is a yearly literature festival with a "dayly" online platform.
• I didn't expand my search to scientific sources, which are often kept behind a paywall.

---- Emmarade (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)