Talk:James Wesley Rawles

POV balance

A note for the attention of wiki editor SaltyBoatr: You have pushed your POV too far, when you inserted loaded phrases like ""claims to have predicted ". (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Wesley_Rawles&diff=345684686&oldid=345678856 ) That prediction is properly referenced therein, so it is clear that he did indeed make such a prediction. Why did you insert that phrase?

Another loaded word that you inserted was "purported" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Wesley_Rawles&diff=345349539&oldid=345348104 ) Please explain why you did so.

You also used "lunatic fringe" in way that connected it closely with Rawles, rather than to just those elements of the survivalist movement. I have never seen Rawles himself characterized as part of "the lunatic fringe" by any reliable third party source. Name your source, or leave it qualified with more distance, as I did, in my most recent edit.

In at least two instances, you also saw fit to remove the qualifying phrase "was one of many [who predicted...]" Please explain why you singled out Rawles, with these selective pruning edits when it was clear that he was not standing alone in those predictions.

You also added the phrase: "Rawles in his survivalist writings made predictions of collapse and warned about". It is clear that Rawles was not making an absolute predictive statement, yet your choice of phrasing characterized it as such. In the vast majority of his macro level predictions he has only spoken in terms of possibilities and some probabilities, NOT absolutes. Please explain the intent of your edit.

Please keep in mind that this is a biography of a living person (BLP) , and as such, the editing is held to a higher standard than most other wiki articles. Please show caution and choose your phrasing more carefully.

Sincerely, Trasel (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's regroup now. The goal, my goal, is to read reliable third party sourcing and edit an article to accurately and neutrally match what we read. Much of the article presently reads like a recruiting pamphlet for the survivalist cause, drawn from primary sources. While I try to assume good faith, it is plainly obvious that Trasel is editing from a perspective of an advocate for Survivalism, and an advocate for his longtime associate. This is plainly in conflict with the WP:Policy. I am not asking for editors to take my word either, and I am 100% willing to follow the methodical WP:DR procedures in order to resolve this dispute. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered any of my questions about your specific edits. Please do so, point by point. Again , this is a BLP--with the concomitant standards thereof--so lets be meticulous and address each of your edits. Trasel (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that Rawles is reported to be making predictions about the likelihood of a collapse as reported in the reliable secondary source, CNN. Your edit[1] actually goes well beyond what you claim, and whitewashes criticism sourced in the CNN article. This raises questions about your conflict of interest here. Do you agree to follow WP:DR? Please answer. SaltyBoatr (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again: You haven't answered any of my questions about your specific edits. Please do so, point by point. I will of course agree to going to DR with this. It is plain from you edits that you have taken the "guilt by association" approach with your edits, and that is just plain low. Your use of "lunatic fringe", in particular, is a blatant POV push. The quote in question was from CNN Europe ( "http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html#cnnSTCText" )

Here is the original text of the article:

To those who have heard of it at all, survivalism is sometimes associated with extremist views. In the U.S., the movement has occasionally been hijacked by far-right groups attracted by its rejection of much of government and its fierce defense of the right to bear arms.

For example, Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh was obsessed with survivalism as a teenager, setting up a generator and a store of canned food and potable water in his basement.

For defenders of the movement, like Jim Rawles who runs a survivalist blog and lives "in a very lightly populated region west of the Rockies" this perversion by a "lunatic fringe" distorts the true message of survivalism, which is, in many ways, just about personal freedom.

You asserted that I'm trying to "whitewash" this article when at the same time, you are blackening it, with a tarry brush. You started out by saying: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Wesley_Rawles&diff=345684686&oldid=345678856 ) " "A central premise of the survivalist movement, of which Rawles is a leading spokesman, are predictions of a coming societal meltdown. Outlining a large number of doomsday scenarios, ranging from climate change to economic collapse, this message resonates with a growing number of people. Traditionally from the far-right "lunatic fringe" but Rawles claims that this distorts the "true message" and prefers to focus instead on "personal freedom"." Can't you see what you've done here? That is guilty be association, plain and simple. Instead of summarizing what the CNN article said forthrightly, you clouded the waters, and this puts the subject of the bio in a bad light. It is clear that Rawles wants nothing to do with "the lunatic fringe." For example, he is ANTI-racist. But that important distinction was removed from his biography. So what are we left with, at the end of the editing process? In effect that the survivalist movement is a bunch of loonies and racists, and the Rawles is "a leading spokesman" for them. Please explain and justify each of the edits that I've mentioned. Trasel (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you refuse to follow WP:DR procedures, and that you misrepresent my actions attempting to set up a straw man. This, plus your name calling, makes a hostile editing environment. Again, can we instead focus on rewriting the article based on the available reliable third party sourcing? You are bringing your personal admiration and friendship of this man here, resulting in the article relying far too heavily on your biased interpretation of primary sources. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am skeptical we can proceed constructively in this hostile environment, but I will try. One issue here, you write above using a declarative "he is ANTI-racist". I haven't seen reliable third party sourcing that says he is "ANTI-racist", the best we can say is that based on synthesis of primary sources (his writings) he claims to be "ANTI-racist". We don't have the luxury within the policy of WP:SYN to make interpretations from his blogs (or, it appears, from your personal acquaintance of this man). SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(NB: double edit conflict, so I haven't yet read the above two comments) In an attempt to mediate and provide a 3rd opinion, both sides of this concern appear to be sincerely acting in an attempt to improve this article, so I see no need for hostility. I hope that all parties will strive harder to discuss the individual edits, impersonally, as opposed to presuming the intentions of individual editors.

Regarding the article wording, terms like "claims to..." and "purported" are part of the WP:Words to avoid. They put an air of dubiousness on the action, which is generally inappropriate for a neutral article. Instead, we either should say or summarize what actions took place (e.g. "Rawles said X"); or say or summarize the secondary source's statements (e.g. "according to CNN, Rawles did X"). I agree that "lunatic fringe" is a non-neutral expression, that was used where perfectly valid neutral alternative terms exist. Even if the source used the term, it was used in a specific context which ended up being lost or altered in this edit.

If readers come into this article with the belief that all survivalists are racist loonies, or any other misconception, it is not this article's job to correct them. This article discusses the verifiable facts about a person.

As I've said in previous discussions, this article must be very careful in what predictions it does and does not report. Reporting only accurate predictions results in card stacking. Reporting only predictions covered by 3rd parties presents publication bias issues (journalists are less likely to write articles about "some guy you've probably not heard of was totally wrong about a prediction you hadn't heard of either"). I believe the prediction section is much better than it has been in the past, but also that further improvement is absolutely possible.

I'll look into suggesting more specific edits when I have more time. -Verdatum (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the calming advice. This makes me question what is the purpose of the predictions section? The feeling I get is that it presently is intended to make a case that Mr. Rawles has made these accurate predictions in the past (as documented by selective snippets from his blog), therefore isn't he great! What seems more neutral is the way that CNN handled it, which is that the survivalist movement (for which Rawles is reported as a prominent spokesman) is in the habit of predicting risk of calamity and they then advocate for preparedness as a lifestyle. Orienting the article around the way CNN handles their representation of survivalism, (as with the 'since biblical times' quote) creates a more neutral perspective. Presently the article suffers too much from boosterism and reads like a fan site. Let's tone than down through more neutral language, and through removal of the selective snippet quotes from his blog. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Salty actually raises a good question in asking what the purpose of the section is... do we really need to itemize Rawles's predictions and warnings? I think the entire section could be summed up with a broader, and less POV statement focusing on Rawles's call for preparedness rather than specific predictions. As Trasel has pointed out, Rawles does not consider himself a prophet. The specifics of his warnings are secondary to the over all theme of his warnings... that people need to be prepared for an economic collapse. His real message isn't about a specific economic collapse... it's about preparing for any economic collapse. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. Notice in the CNN article that Rawles comes 99.99% of the way to prediction of a "Coming Collapse" with the title of his claim to fame book: "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse. Then he also says, as quoted by CNN "...the cities are going to become unglued." And, the article discusses at length how this message resonates with survivalists, who respond to the advocacy for "preparedness" for "the end of the world" (from his other book title). I know Rawles denies being a prophet, but certainly he is aware and caters to his audience (like Derek, featured in the CNN article) who hear Rawles with a message of "coming collapse" and "end of the world" and "we must prepare". Rawles may deny being prophetic as a face saving measure of humility, but he then chose those prophetic book titles, and his written action belies his spoken word. Also an important point, the CNN author, and Rawles himself in direct quote, notes that he is speaking to survivalists who predominately are idyllic: "The majority of survivalists live in suburban areas and they see a life away from that as an ideal," he says. "Unfortunately, from a practical standpoint it's not possible so I think for some of these people we're living out their fantasies." My point being, that we must describe Rawles neutrally, in context of his audience, and presently with the undue weight of selective quotes in his blog the article reads like it is preaching Rawles message, where instead we should be neutrally reporting Rawles in societal context. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, there! Salty, you really should READ both of Rawles's books before drawing those kinda conclusions. First off, "Patriots" is a piece of FICTION. He has stated publicly that he doesn't expect things to go south--that badly. The "worst case" shown in that book was intentionally DRAMA. Yup, he wrote it as FICTION, for enetainment! People buying "adventure" novels don't want to read about boring times and ho-hum lives. ) I just did a search and found this: http://www.survivalblog.com/2007/09/letter_re_will_things_get_a_ba.html So you can put that conjecture to bed.

There are also something like 8,000 archived posts for his blog that have gone up since 2005. (He is nearly fanatical about posting EVERY day. I think he only took a couple of days off, after his wife died. ) If you do some searches there, he repeatedly states that he DOES NOT make many firm predictions.

For sources, I put a lot more weight behind his published 316-page non-fiction book than I do from a few hundreds words in an article filtered by a journalist. In his book, Rawles uses lots of "could be " and "might happen" qualifiers- NOT any absolute prophetic "THIS SHALL HAPPEN" kinda statements. Trasel (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is... By listing his warnings and predictions as we do, I think we (perhaps unintentionally) give the reader the impression that Rawles does make prophetic "THIS SHALL HAPPEN" statements. That is why I think we would be better off completely restructuring or even omitting the section. Essentially, Rawles has had the same message for years... be prepared. He changes the context in which he places that message to fit current events (warning about Y2K when that was current... warning about the current recession now) but the message itself remains the same. If we focus on the message and not the context I think we will more neutrally reflect what is really going on. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most of the "Economic predictions and warnings of a possible collapse of society" section is coherent and properly balanced. The only foundational issue is that it should somehow clarify that Rawles doesn't see himself as a prophet, and that he rarely makes predictions with dates or dollar figures attached. The only problematic portion is the first paragraph (which begins with this: "A central premise of the survivalist movement..." That paragraph is--even after a re-write--still a muddled mess. I suggest that it either be axed, or completely re-written.

This leaves the "Philosophical, political and economic views" section, which still has some issues. But I'll leave that up to other editors, since the last time I tried to clean up a paragraph, Salty started making "COI" complaints. Trasel (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we really shouldn't read his book or his blog, at least for the purpose of writing this article. We should read reliable third party sourcing written about the man. There are three articles, Forbes, CNN and MSNBC referenced above. The residual original research based on synthesis of the primary documents done previously needs to be drastically trimmed, and replaced by properly sourced content.

And, by the way, Trasel has not actually fully disclosed his conflict of interest. Initially he disclosed that he only knew the man in college, decades ago. But, when pressed, Trasel acknowledged that in addition to the 1980 acquaintance that he has "corresponded several times". But, looking at Rawles blog, we see Trasel mentioned 84 times. Included in this are several posts of Trasel gleefully pushing his personal POV on Wikipedia and that: Note from JWR (Mr. Rawles): "SurvivalBlog reader Trasel (our volunteer Wikipedia watcher) wrote to tell me that his newly-created Wikipedia page titled Retreat (survivalism) is already in the midst of its first 'war of revisions...' The controversy is about which (if any) external links are... Mr. Rawles speaking to fellow survivalists describes Trasel as "our volunteer Wikipeida watcher" acting as a SurvivalBlog Wikipedia sentinel. This undisclosed conflict of interest on SurvivalBlog article goes FAR beyond Trasels half hearted disclosure of "corresponded several times". SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Material pending discussion

I am moving the material about Rawles's predicitons to this page, pending further discussion.... relax, we can always move it back when we have finished. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As part of his survivalist message, Rawles predicted a number of economic troubles including the end of the housing bubble in the United States. On August 14, 2005, he urged his blog readers to "Sell any rental or non-retreat vacation houses that you own. Take your profit now. It is better to be a year too early than a day too late. Keep that money on the sidelines, with at least a portion of it in precious metals. Then after the bubble bursts, you'll have the chance to step in with cash and buy at perhaps as low as 40 cents on the dollar versus the currently over-inflated prices. When you eventually do decide to buy, concentrate on productive farm land in a lightly populated rural region.". In August, 2005, Rawles correctly predicted mortgage holders "walking away" from houses and turning in the house keys to their bankers—what has now been dubbed "jingle mail": "When the bubble does burst, watch out. Things could get ugly. I predict that people that are caught "upside down" in their mortgages will just turn in the keys at the bank and walk away from their houses. This has happened before—most notably in Texas in the 1980s when the Houston Oil Boom fell apart and took the real estate market for the region with it."

In his survivalist writings, Rawles has warned of a possible economic collapse triggered by the global derivatives market. In October 2007 he predicted that hedge funds will fail and suspend investor redemptions at a greatly increasing rate, in what he described as "a disaster story that could unfold in quarterly episodes."

Another example of his predictions of economic calamity came in February 2008, when Rawles warned SurvivalBlog readers to "be ready for bank runs".

In March 2008, Rawles predicted that the US government would take the approach of employing what he dubbed the "Mother of All Bailouts" (MOAB), to counteract the collapse of the global credit market, in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage and credit default swap (CDS) fiasco. Rawles predicted that more and more institutions—both public and private—would be bailed out. He further predicts that this uncontrolled public spending will inevitably result in mass inflation of the US currency.

Discussion about this material

OK... I think we would be best served by summarizing all this in one paragraph. I will think on it, and see what I can come up with. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the move of this material, sourced from the blog, to this talk page for discussion. I think the best model for a discussion of Rawles predictions is to mirror the treatment of this issue as written in the CNN article. CNN casts Rawles in societal context of the Survivalist movement. Whereby Rawles is catering to, and sympathetic with, a mentality of the inevitability of a "coming collapse" and the "end of the world as we know it" compelling the adherents of the movement to "prepare". The CNN article deals with this by interviewing the Survivalist "Derek" who is described as a typical Survivalist, and as wanting to "get ready for the meltdown". Rawles on one hand encourages such Survivalist behavior and on the other hand couches a somewhat more rational/objective viewpoint and we must convey this inconsistent duality. That said, I think the last section presently in the article, "...predictions and warnings...", (sourced to the CNN piece) could serve as a starting point for this new 'predictions' summary paragraph. Though I think that the collapse referred to by Survivalists and Rawles exceed mere "Economic predictions...", and are well described in the title of Rawles other book, a non-fiction work, as predictions of the "...end of the world as we know it.". Objectively, these are apocalyptic predictions being made here, and it is noteworthy that CNN compares them to Biblical predictions, consistent with the extremist Christian identity seen commonly in this societal group. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Salty: RE: : " and are well described in the title of Rawles other book, a non-fiction work, as predictions of the "...end of the world as we know it."" Again, Salty, you haven't read his book. If you had, then you would know that it is almost entirely about practical steps for preparedness, and it is NOT about any predictions, other than one brief sample "what if" scenario, on pages 3 and 4. That is less than two full pages of 300+ page book. If you aren't willing to arm yourself with knowledge about what Rawles has written, by doing some basic reading to get your bearings, then I recommend that you desist editing this article. Trasel (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggested consolidation and rewrite:

• As part of his survivalist message, Rawles has correctly forseen a number of recent economic troubles including the end of the housing bubble., the collapse of the global derivatives market, and large government bailouts of key industries. He has also incorrectly predicted significant bank runs. In each case, his message was similar: be prepared.

comments on the suggestion

Please. Let's instead use the available reliable third party sources. This suggested edit is based entirely on improper synthesis of the primary document, overtly biased, written by a close associate of the author in plain conflict of interest, and that is outrageous and inappropriate. SaltyBoatr (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... Salty... the suggested edit was written by me, not Trasel. It may include an improper synthesis, and it may be (unintentionally) biased... but I have no connection to Rawles. I have no problem with using available reliable third party sources... this was simply an initial suggestion on how to trim the section by cuting the boosterism and fluff. By no means is it a final version. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit to being on edge about this, sorry, thanks for the calming words. Still, I have objections to just cherry picking "successful" predictions from Rawles blog, this selective quoting as you have done (like Trasel before) amounts to improper synthesis of primary source material. I am OK with mirroring what we see in the third party coverage of the tendency of Rawles suggesting imminent catastrophy as a technique for marketing to the survivalists, because that is more neutral. I haven't seen third party sourcing that describes Rawles successful predictions like you suggest we put into the article, and without that, we would violate WP:NOR policy. The problem with your "has correctly seen" passage is that it synthesizes a fallacious implication that Rawles is prophetic. Contrast that with the CNN handling of this same issue of whether Rawles is or is not prophetic, where they write: "...groups of various descriptions have been predicting a breakdown of society since biblical times -- and very occasionally they've been right." Or, the Forbes article which handles it by not mention at all the prophetic aspect of Rawles and to instead focus on his penchant for giving advice that it is simply prudent to be cautious by being self-sufficient. Similar with the MSNBC article with doesn't mention at all Rawles predictions, but rather makes the conclusion that Rawles is following the market trend towards survivalism and is leveraging it into his successful business model with "record advertising revenue" as a result. By modeling the article after the third party sourcing which we see we can fix the prior problem that the article contained too much non-neutral boosterism drawn from his blog. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Salty: You wrote: "I am OK with mirroring what we see in the third party coverage of the tendency of Rawles suggesting imminent catastrophy [sic]". Excuse me Salty, but when and where has Rawles ever made an "imminent" prediction of catastrophe? Please cite us either a primary, secondary, or even tertiary source. If anything, Rawles tries to soft pedal any such suggestions. See: http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/02/letter_re_what_does_the_drop_i.html. and http://www.survivalblog.com/2008/10/odds_n_sods_934.html I only found one article where Rawles actually made a prediction using the word "Imminent": http://www.survivalblog.com/2006/01/still_more_about_silvers_immin.html -- and that was a MARKET prediction for silver, not any prediction of a catastrophe or disaster. (And by the way, silver futures and the "spot" market for silver were at around $11 per ounce at the time, but jumped to $19 per ounce, a few months later.) Yes, Rawles does make some predictions, and yes they can be documented. But he is not some fanatical wild-eyed fear-mongerer. Trasel (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see in reliable secondary sourcing where Rawles is attributed with suggesting imminent catastrophe. First, both of his book titles make the blunt predictions "...Surviving the Coming Collapse" and "How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It" both are described in secondary sourcing and both suggest imminent catastrophe through a literal reading of the meaning of words. (You have argued above that the literal meaning of the words in the title should somehow be discounted through interpretation of the text in the book, an argument that seems contrived). The CNN article makes a very strong suggestion of coming catastrophe with the words "...the cities are going to become unglued." I accept that these three are suggestions of coming catastrophe. Though, it is a point of fact that the survivalist Derek is described in context of Rawles as an example survivalists and the CNN article uses the words "There's going to be absolute pandemonium when it does happen" so we have some pretty strong secondary sourcing about Rawles that involves near term predictions of catastrophe. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Salty, would you propose some wording that addresses your concerns and reflects how you think this should be done? Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, give me about a day think about it, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, Salty: How do you define "Imminent"? Do you use it interchangeably with "possible" or "eventual"? Your use of the English language mystifies me. It's pretty clear that you haven't read Rawles's books, yet you persist in writing a biography of a living person (BLP), in ignorance.

In citing the CNN article, you quoted it out of context. Here is a more complete quote, describing his novel, "Patriots":

• "Although a work of fiction, Rawles believes the reality is not far off.

• "I've come to the conclusion that the biggest lynchpin is the power grid. If it were to go down, either through economic collapse or a terrorist atrocity, then the cities are going to become unglued."

That's a speculative extrapolation on the part of a journalist, and an "If/then" statement spoken by Rawles, but clearly not a short term prediction of imminent collapse made by Rawles himself.

You also quote SOMEONE ELSE: "There's going to be absolute pandemonium when it does happen." Those words were spoken by someone named Derek (no last name given), NOT Rawles, yet you are tenuously trying to attach that to Rawles!!! You are dangerously engaged in synthesis. (WP:SYN). If you can't be more neutral, then I suggest you go find another article to go edit. Trasel (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You can relax. I am firmly committed to adhering to WP:BLP here! Also, it is disheartening that you appear not to grasp the central policy point required by WP:BLP which is that here we have a heightened duty to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. A core precept of WP:NOR is that we should be strictly using reliable secondary sources, and neither Rawles books nor Rawles blog qualify as valid secondary sources we can use here. Therefore WP:BLP dictates that we remove those primary sources from the article in favor of secondary sources.

Also, I am not hung up on the word "imminent". We can chose other words capturing the time frame for preparedness advocacy as seen in the secondary sources. The key thing is that Rawles message runs along the lines of there are risks of a "collapse" and we must "prepare", meaning prepare now or soon. Perhaps there is another word besides imminent that communicates that time frame.

And, no I am not associating the message of other survivalists to Rawles. I am only observing that reliable secondary sources do this. We have a duty here to make this article reflect the reliable secondary sources and CNN, Forbes and MSNBC are attaching the message of survivalists to Rawles. They each are reporting Mr. Rawles by framing him in context of the modern survivalist movement. Therefore, per policy, so should also do this in this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Salty: We can quote his blog, per the WP:BLP guidelines:

"Using the subject as a self-published source Further information: WP:SELFPUB Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."

Please don't cite writing guidelines that you have read through. Trasel (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not quite... WP:SELFPUB says we may quote his blog only if it passes certain criteria. I think there is a legitimate question as to whether the blog passes criteria #1 (unduely self-serving), and I think we definitely have a problem with criteria #5 (article is based primarily on such sources). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires higher quality sources

This recent edit[2] points to the blog of the website thedailybeast.com. Considering that this is a biography of a living person, the policy standard here requires us to use a stricter scrutiny of WP:V policy. I question if a blog like this meets this higher scrutiny requirement. It would be safer to find a more mainstream published reliable source, is there one available? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse The Daily Beast with unreliable personal blogs. It is essentially an online daily news magazine, not a blog in the common sense of the word. Here is a description of it that I found online: "The Daily Beast was just launched on October 6th, 2008 and is published by Tina Brown, the former publisher of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker. The site is made up of both original content and links to contents from other sources." The interview with Rawles was an original article done by a Daily Beast staff writer. (It was not something aggregated from another news site. BTW, you can see other articles at The Daily Beast by the same staff writer). Trasel (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a time when we simply said "No blogs". However, that is no longer the case. We do recognize that there is a difference between Joe Blow's blogger page and blogs that are attempting to be a legitimate source of journalism. I would agree that the dailybeast appears to be the latter. The the key to determining its reliability is whether it has developed a reputation for good fact checking, journalistic integrety, etc. Since I do not know the dailybeast's reputation, I have asked about it at WP:RSN. Given that it is being used for a fairly minor point (that Rawles publishes with that comma in his name), I think we can probably accept it. Obviously, if my querry at RSN comes back with a negative reaction I would change my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Evisceration of Valid Second Party References

Another editor is systematically removing valid second party journalistic references from this article. First, he changed the text to mismatch the references [3] and [4], and then he removed the references, because they no longer matched the text![5] The end result was that a half dozen good references disappeared. (Some sort of twisted circular logic?) If you can't be constructive, then edit elsewhere. It bears mentioning that this same editor recently launched an AfD campaign on one of Rawles's books, ostensibly because there were insufficient second party sources. By iteratively eviscerating valid references, dreams can come true.Trasel (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to ignore your personal attacks, this is unnecessarily hostile, and poisons the editing environment. Also, you should not take it as a personal affront that other editors are trying to collaborate on this article, see WP:OWN. The sentence you mentioned was cited by eight references, when one could have been adequate. That sentence was a mess, and claimed that Rawles is considered to be an expert on survivalist, but none of the eight links and none actually said that.Citations must match what is being written, and loading up eight citations on one simple sentence is superfluous. Let's approach this more calmly, and start by reading the secondary sources and then write an article that matches what we read. It is backwards to write an article about what we want to say, and then do Google searches to "prove it" by loading in citations. SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Read through the editing history again: One key point that must be clarified: I was not the one that changed it to read that he was an "expert on survivalism." I had used a much more neutral phrase there, and you you saw fit to change it. Then once you had changed it, the references no longer matched, and you zapped them. You are engaged in hostile editing practices. This should be brought to the attention of some disinterested Admins.. Trasel (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why use a German language link to cite that Rawles authored the Patriots book?

There appears to be no editorial reason to use a link to a German language newspaper to provide reference[6] to a sentence claiming something as simple as the fact that Rawles is known as the author of the Patriots book. Why use a German language link for something so simple? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about this myself. While wikipedia accepts non-english language sources, we do prefer english language ones if they are available. I would think we could find an English language source for this. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I was merely trying to retain a useful reference to Rawles's work, that Salty had zapped elsewhere. (See the accompanying discussion.) It is ironic that the same editor who claims that there are insufficient second party sources about Rawles's writings is also the same one that is so busy at zapping references at every available opportunity. Two weeks ago, this article had more than 70 references. Trasel (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Trasel should explain this himself, but when he explained earlier his edit summary implied, (I think), that he is trying to POV push the notability of the author by inference because this ref is found in "Germany's largest-circulating newspaper.". In my opinion, for Trasel to do this type of inference amounts to improper synthesis and POV push. Trasel has self declared his advocacy to advance conservative politics in Wikipedia. Indeed, I see this as a pattern of editor behavior, seeking to load in excessively redundant and tenuous referencing to the articles that he edits to create an appearance to casual readers that the his favorite conservative issue articles are well sourced. But when you actually check the references you see that many or most are chafe: not pertinent, non-reliable, not independent and WP:SYN. This is a form POV pushing, that Trasel himself has compared to "greener pastures (at) Conservapedia". SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words int my mouth, Salty. I mentioned my plans on RETIRING from WP because I want to find a more neutral editing environment. Wikiipedia has a preponderantly liberal bias that has been well documented by folks like David Gerrold. Oh but don't look for it on his Talk page. That discussion was swept under the rug, by some Teflon-coated editor. Nothing embarrassing sticks in Wikipedia. Trasel (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of putting words in your mouth, I invited you to explain, but you didn't. While, just below you accuse me of being politically inspired, putting words in my mouth. You describe several prior AfD "campaigns" as unsuccessful politically inspired, but neglect to mention your repeated improper politically skewed canvassing of conservative blogs during those AfD discussions. And, it is interesting that you consider that Conservapedia has a more neutral editing environment than Wikipedia, really? I guess it is a matter of perspective. Wikipedia is designed to allow editors with different points of view to edit collaboratively though adherence of a number of policies and codes of conduct which I encourage you to review because they offer a solution to this complaint our yours. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression that you use the word "neutral" in the same way that Congress uses "Bi-partisan" (meaning "you agree to do it my way"). Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No I use the word "neutral" to mean neutral. I have spent nearly four years attempting to to CREATE new content at Wikipedia. Several of the articles that I started have been targets of unsuccessful, politically-inspired AfD campaigns. Those alone have wasted dozens of hours of my time. I can now say that I'm tired of wasting my time here. I have reached my limit. I'm retiring, TODAY. You and your cabal can go celebrate, Salty. You've driven off another editor, with your tendentious editing and wiki-lawyering. Adios!!!

R E T I R E D

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.Trasel (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is your right to leave if you wish to. No one can force anyone to edit. Hope you find an atmosphere more to your liking elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)