User talk:Collect

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status.

Well-meaning editors: Do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

I find it interesting that an editor who avers he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything remotely like:

I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).

And then, lets just go back to being fellow editors with an extreme dislike for an editor whose name begins with a C and ends in a T.

Sound "collegial to you? [2] shows his ideal BLP edit.

Quote of the day from an editor who seems to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":

Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.

I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly.

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH

WP:Sledgehammer

WP:Variable RS

User:Collect/Collect's Law

Happy Collect's Day!

User:Collect has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Collect's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Collect! Peace, Rlevse 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And sincere best regards and thanks to you! Collect (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Just wondering if you could clarify for me the difference between entries of "non-notables", many of which, but not all, haven't got secondary sourcing, on the List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws, to which you took exception, and the entries on the List of American police officers killed in the line of duty, almost all of which derive from the Officer Down website, and few of which will ever be stand-alone articles, although some have secondary sourcing. Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not look at every single Wikipedia list - just this one. And Wikipedia requires entries to be sourced with reliable secondary sourcing, and to be about persons who are notable. Collect (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Thanks for following the procedure on Baseball Bugs' request, made my job a whole lot easier! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Collect, rather than create a new section on the same page, a motion has been proposed on the Tea Party movement request in which you were named as a party. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request

Hi Collect, I have closed and archived the amendment request regarding the Tea Party movement case in which you were named as a party. The Arbitration Committee resolved that:

Remedy 7.1 ("Xenophrenic topic-banned") and Remedy 7.2 ("Xenophrenic interaction ban with Collect") of the Tea Party movement decision are suspended. These remedies may be enforced under the relevant enforcement provision, but effective the passage of this motion they shall only be enforced for edits by Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) that, in the enforcing administrator's judgement, would have been considered disruptive for some other reason than that they breached the remedy had it not been suspended.

Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hoel

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hoel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping my student Shadowbolt7 with the text he put on the Prison-Industrial Complex page. It was a valuable learning experience for him. Profmwilliams (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Collect (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Modesty

"In addition to supporting efforts to limit government spending in general, Koch's organizations Americans for Prosperity and the Cato Institute oppose public funding of public broadcasting, the arts, education, and scientific research." Please explain to me what you believe to be a "more modest edit," in your parlance. --The Cunctator (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"HuffPo" is editorial in nature. You use it to imply Koch opposes any public monies for the arts, education and research. The HuffPo "source" says absolutely nothing of the sort. Next is "canceradvocacy". It says nothing to support the claim that AFP and Cato "oppose funding for research" either. PBS? Nope either. AFP? At least it mentions AFP. Says absolutely noting about opposing all finding for art, education and research. In fact, not a single source I found supports the claims you tried making for them. "FierceGovernment" rails at the "Ryan Budget" but does not make any claim that it removed all funding for the arts, education and research at all. And it is not RS for anything in this case to begin with. Cato? At least it covers itself. Thought piece on the "militarization of science" it appears. Opposed to research funding? Not a bit. And not an "official position" of Cato either. How many more misused cited does one need to find before noting the claims are not supported by your laundry list of cites, many of which do not meet WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Weaving Spiders Come Not Here (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Public service announcement

Sorry for the template. I noticed that you recently tried to {{ping}} someone as an addition or correction to a previous post you'd made. Thousands of editors think this works, but it doesn't. I'm on a quixotic quest to tell everyone I see doing this that pinging only works when you also add a new signature at the same time as the ping. See Wikipedia:Notifications if you're curious.

There. Two down, 9,998 to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Argh -- for some reason a person told me it "pinged" me in the past -- but I had to turn on something in notifications. For some reason I had thought ATG had that turned on. That it requires a new sig was never brought to my attention before. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?

(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

amusing reliable sources

(from various sites)

The New York Times:

An article last Sunday about the documentary maker Morgan Spurlock, who has a new film out on the boy band One Direction, misstated the subject of his 2012 movie “Mansome.” It is about male grooming, not Charles Manson. The article also misspelled the name of the production company of Simon Cowell, on whose “X Factor” talent competition show One Direction was created. The company is Syco, not Psycho.

The New York Times:

An obituary on Sept. 20 about Hiroshi Yamauchi, the longtime president of Nintendo, included a quotation from a 1988 New York Times article that inaccurately described the Nintendo video game Super Mario Bros. 2. The brothers Mario and Luigi, who appear in this and other Nintendo games, are plumbers, not janitors.

The New York Times:

An article on Monday about a recall election facing Colorado lawmakers who supported gun-control legislation referred incorrectly to one of the Republican challengers expected to face John Morse, the State Senate president, on the ballot. The candidate, Bernie Herpin, is a former city councilman, not an author of erotic novels. (Jaxine Bubis, a novelist turned politician, has dropped out of the race.)

The Huffington Post:

An earlier version of this story indicated that the Berlin Wall was built by Nazi Germany. In fact, it was built by the Communists during the Cold War.

Slate:

This review misspelled basically everyone’s name. It’s Hannah Horvath, not Hannah Hovrath; Marnie is played by Allison Williams, not Alison Williams; and Ray is played by Alex Karpovsky, not Zosia Mamet.

The Wall Street Journal:

A Bloody Mary recipe, which accompanied an Off Duty article in some editions on June 8 about the herb lovage, called for 12 ounces of vodka and 36 ounces of tomato juice. The recipe as printed incorrectly reversed the amounts, calling for 36 ounces of vodka and 12 ounces of tomato juice.(all from [3])

omg thanks for the link, this made my day. BRB directing East Germany to Nazi Germany Avono (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

You previously voted here as a keep for an article [4]. It is up for AFD again [5]. I was wondering if you could look at the article again and vote in the New AFD here. The newer article has more information and better formats. Also if you could see any ways to improve the article it would be appreciated. Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a happy new year!

Thank you for all time you put in hard and unrewarded tasks.
I hope you enjoy this hollidays and I wish you a happy new 2015!
--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

EW

Hi Collect. You seem to be edit warring on Breitbart (website). Could you please stop?- MrX 02:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr X - did you miss the agreement to get the BLP issue out of the section by removing the name of a non-notable living person? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess so. Where is this agreement?- MrX 02:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It was about removing BLP as the issue - [6] was the proffered solution which I found reasonable. Unless you feel the name of the writer is important for readers? Collect (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not an "agreement". That's you agreeing with one other editor, and ignoring the advice of several other editors at WP:BLP/N#Breitbart (website). You are edit warring, and as it is you third revert in less than 24 hours, you are on the brink of crossing the 3RR bright-line.- MrX 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you find the person to be notable or not? That is what counts at this point. If you find he is notable, I have some FL land to sell you <g>. Collect (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You were edit warring, and you seem to have ignored comments from several users in a discussion that you yourself started, simply because it didn't go your way. - MrX 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The person is a living person. That is relevant. You are now pushing a dead horse. Which is also relevant. Cheers, for now. Collect (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning United States, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Frank R. Wallace

Dear Editor: I just made some additions to the article on Frank R. Wallace but I wasn't paying attention -- didn't realize that the citations to court cases I added were citations you had just taken out. Anyway, see my comments on the talk page for that article. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remove cites to primary sources. Collect (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Redistricting and Congressional Districts

I appreciate your good faith edit at Michael Grimm. However, long standing consensus on inboxes and succession boxes has been to ignore geographic changes when considering redistricting. The article already says that Districts 11 and District 13 cover Staten Island, and were renumbered due to the 2010 apportionment. Please see the 2007 redistricting discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. The articles for Charles B. Rangle and Yvette Clark already list Grimm as a predecessor/successor, so to change Grimm's article would cause a chain reaction requiring changes to several hundred of articles. If you feel this issues should be revised, I encourage you to take it up at WikiProject U.S. Congress.DCmacnut<> 14:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read Template:Infobox officeholder and note that what you assert to be "long standing consensus" was, in fact, changed. [7] Consensus is reasonably clear that successor or predecessor should not be used in infoboxes where significant redistricting has taken place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion you reference on Michael Grimm is a specific case, and says that such usage should be on a case by case basis. I was not aware of the new language in the officeholder inbox, but the fact remains that there are hundreds of articles that already adhere to the "ignore geography" consensus. If I had participated in the Grimm discussion, I would have opposed the change. The debate over the Michigan reps at the link I provided came to a decidedly different conclusion. I will not make reverts to the Grimm article on this matter, but I do not believe consensus exists broadly in all cases on this matter. This issue comes up every time a state reapportions its districts, so the debate will continue.DCmacnut<> 15:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Very few examples are as extreme as the Grimm one where there was no overlap -- note that the federal government does not use the congressional district numbers - they exist solely for convenience of the states for election purposes. Collect (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Official Congressional Directory does, in fact, use district numbers, though not to the extent that Wikipedia does when a member's service overlaps reapportionment. [8] One of the major concerns about this approach was that it required original research on the part of Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not to use "redistricted". As you say, the New York Times ignores district numbers in its coverage, and cases like Grimm are rare, so I would say that is a reliable source that resolves that concern for New York districts. But I fear a slippery slope if we open the door wider and start letting editors skirt the WP:NOR issue. The original decision to stick with district numbers was a simple, yet albeit ugly, way of avoid the issue altogether.DCmacnut<> 15:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not require any "original research" when such sources as the NYT use this standard when saying predecessor or successor. The claim that Rangel "succeeded" Grimm was nicely risible - and where a result is risible, it can not be called encyclopedic. Collect (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning (again)

It doesn't matter if you're right (and you may very well be), but please stop edit warring over this trivial content. It's disruptive.- MrX 18:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for once again templating a regular. It shows your infinite wisdom to insist that Charles Rangel is now taking the place of Michael Grimm when the template talk page discussion and RfC reached the opposite conclusion. Cheers. And do NOT template me again in this manner. Short polite notes are how adults communicate. Collect (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Begging your pardon Collect, but that wasn't a template, unless you mean the 30 pixel-wide hand. I have no interest in this dispute. My previous attempts to reason with you to get you to stop edit warring accross multiple (politics) articles have obviously been for naught, so if you prefer, I will just let WP:3RR/N sort it out next time. Please advise.- MrX 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Once you use the "stop sign" it is "templating." I suggest you should rethink doing so in future. Try a polite "did you count your reverts?" type message - and note that reverting an IP is generally not counted -- as it is quite possible the IP is simply a logged-out person who has already done his own reverts. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You have obviously been warned enough about edit warring in the past, and your responses have frequently been dismissive. I'm not required to warn experienced editors about what they already know (see #Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion), so I won't bother warning you again.- MrX 19:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Um -- perhaps you would like a review of my "blocks" including those where an admin was bullied into the act, and one where the admin was roundly denounced for a "bad block" and one where an admin was later desysopped for such acts? I stand by my most notorious positions -- "Joe the Plumber" should not have "illegal plumber" or "plumber's ass" as his occupation, and so on. If you would like to examine any of my edits do so - but where you are absolutely required to give a notice, you can not ignore that stricture. We made a simple request of you, and you seem to regard this talk page as your own personal battlefield - which it damn well is not. Cheers and Happy New Year. Collect (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

..

starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TY Collect (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

4RR

Excluding a revert of an IP and a minor revert, you are now at 4RR in under 24 hours on the Scalise article. You might wish to consider stepping away for a day or so as a result. Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I certainly did not intend to edit war, and I don't think I have crossed 3RR, but I may have missed something. Would you be so kind as to provide diffs to four reverts that I have made in a 24 hour period? Many thanks.- MrX 03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

1. [9] 16:59 et seq
2. [10] 19:40
3. [11] 20:08 et seq
4. [12] 21:02
5. [13] 23:40

Seems to add up to 4RR in under 7 hours. And your edit [14] at 15:38 on 30 Dec makes 5RR in 32 hours. I did not count your edits which did not affect prior recent edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious Collect?

1. Yes, this is a revert, although not a wholesale one.
2. This is adding new content (sources), not reverting. However, you did subsequently revert my edit here.
3. This one is especially absurd. I corrected a title in a cite, change the date format on cites that I previously added, and I added information to the cites that I previously added.
4. Again, this is adding new content. Why would you ever think this a revert?
5. This trivial change of your grammar error from "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded leader David Duke." to "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded by David Duke.", in practice this would not count as a revert, and it certainly isn't edit warring.

I'm deeply troubled that you would raise this issue with me. Essentially, there is one revert in the diffs you listed. I suspect that you wish this to have a chilling effect to keep me from editing Mr. Scalise's biography. Or perhaps it is meant to teach me a lesson for warning you of your own unambiguous edit warring. In either case, I believe it's petty and vexatious, and indicative of an obvious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that I've observed in you for several years.

Collect, please consider this a good faith warning to stop this nonsense and start editing collaboratively; stop edit warring; and stop twisting policies and wikilawyering to suit whatever personal agenda you have. If you continue in this vein, I will have no choice but to escalate these issues, as I believe they are ultimately harmful to the project. Thank you.- MrX 13:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I was tripped once on a "one letter change" and if you read WP:EW it does indeed say that even a single letter may be counted as a "revert". Cheers -- Hold yourself to the same standards to which you wish to hold others. Meanwhile I suggest that you recognize that my note was polite and not a template - which I trust you noted but forgot to mention. Collect (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate your polite warning, however, you have not addressed the substance of my rebuttal to your accusation. If we have admins who are blocking people for changing one letter (assuming it doesn't materially change meaning), then that's a pretty clear abuse of their authority and a disregard for the purpose of WP:EW which is to encourage collaborative editing and discourage disruption.

If you sincerely believe that I was edit warring, I implore you to open a case at WP:EW/N or WP:ANI, because if my edits on Steve Scalise are actually considered edit warring, then I will no longer be contributing to this project. Best.- MrX 13:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Collect,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

And from me also to you and yours! Collect (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fredrick Brennan

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fredrick Brennan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for sticking up for me in the ARE case that was brought RIGHT as I left for the holidays, and at some related discussion pages. I'd like to think I would have been given the chance to defend myself at length after the holiday, if nobody had spoken for me, but I'm not real super confident about it :|

Christmas cookies for you! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Collect (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roger Scruton

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roger Scruton. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notification

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation/United States

I've agreed to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Osama bin Laden

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Osama bin Laden. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

4 reverts and being my being an R-sole

thanks for the warning I thought it had to be 6 for some reason, can't self revert because some one has already done it but thanks for the heads up if I get banned that would be ironic as I am trying to point out censorship and I am what I said in the title, its just I could not think of any other way to communicate that the koch's are repeatedly being edited by all sides. I have tried NOT to express my opinion of them, my personal views are more with anarcho-syndaclist but that not the point - its about pointing towards the censorship happening around them from all sides - which is why i carefully supplied a reference to what i said.

next time you use BLP try putting it in as WP:BLP - as soon as i saw the connection at the top of the page and then read it - Light bulb moment and a huge chunk of aha - now I understand!!! X-mass (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem- I try to avoid the "drama boards" on Wikipedia as too many of their denizens seem lacking in common sense <g>. Collect (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 January 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you will consider changing your vote. I reworded my questions to based on your comments and others. I hope they better capture what is at dispute. If not, I would be willing to work to capture what is at dispute or you could add comments on what is at dispute yourself. In either case, I hope you will consider accepting.Casprings (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As you did not remove the first question - which is what was already decided by the RfC, I pass. Mediation can not be used to alter a consensus already properly arrived at. Mediation is for disputes which normal processes were unable to resolve - the RfC was, in fact, a successful application per WP:CONSENSUS. Collect (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

While I do agree that their is consensus that it is WP:rs for its own viewpoints, I disagree there is consensus for including material sources by it. In cases where it is used to cite fact, there isn't consensus over rather it is WP:rs. In cases where it is used to cite its own opinion, there isn't consensus on the WP:weight of those opionions. In any case, I hope you do reconsider. Have a good day.Casprings (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Then simply remove question 1 - as placed it is quite simply the sort of question mediation is not supposed to handle - mediation does not try to change consensus already reached. Collect (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Open question

(series including blatant misuse of this talk page removed)

• • Please end this misuse of my talk page. And your implicit accusation that I "drummed up a few people" is a personal attack and apparent claim of a CANVASS violation which is likely actionable at AN/I. You bolded the wrong part of an NYB post: accurate information, at least in that narrow sense.
  • Please also read the Microsoft anecdote[15]: they gave me a technically correct but completely useless answer. Your position would say Wikipedia should give such "technically correct" answers to readers. I disagree. And the fact that a person does not correct all of the roughly one hundred total articles (note - the issue arises when a state gains or loses seats, and not otherwise as a rule - it does not occur for every single redistricted district, as most such are fine tuning within a state - it is only when a new district is added, or , more notably, when one is lost by a state, that the information is useless to readers)) is exceedingly worthless as an argument. I suggest "lo alecha hamlacha ligmor" would be a useful adage for you to learn. Collect (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked high and low for the best prize...

...and I thought about sending you a pict of my donkeys for the "Smart Ass" Award, <---(PS:affectionate humor) but the camel picture won hands down for the Camel Caravan of News which I actually had to look up. I am happy to say, you clearly win the "I out-old-you" Award. --Atsme☯^Consult 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Camel with inscriptions

FYI

FYI, I've cited a diff of your comment, at [16].

Thanks for your thoughtful words,

— Cirt (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Ratel/TickleMeister/Jabbsworth/OzOke

Surely you remember that annoying case of sockpuppetry and you were one of those affected and who helped to pindown the situation. So perhaps you are interested on be informed and/or share your opinion on this new investigation --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

It is true but irrelevant that the Nobel Peace Prize is a major well-documented award. The process of nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize is secretive and murky, and a statement that someone was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize may be difficult to source and may be self-serving. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And all "awards" may also be "self-serving" - that it is not "negative information" does not prevent it being a "contentious claim" under WP:BLP which was the point being made. Thus the use here is, indeed, relevant to the discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

At the top of your user page, you write about a decision by ArbCom. It would be useful if you dated that, so readers know when the decision took place. Even more important and useful would be a link to the decision. As a passerby I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia is such a big place with so many users and decisions being made all the time... --82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant the User page, but thanks for adding the link (on the Talk page). --82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Grimm (politician)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael Grimm (politician). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion

[17] Did you mean to put your comment at the top? I presume your comment supports deletion? Regards, WCM_email 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was clear - and I thunk it was last entry <g>. Collect (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's Howdy Doody Time!!!!

I just read through the ARB stuff, and ANI stuff, and yada yada. I feel your pain. What I still don't quite understand is the fact that content is forsaken and childish misbehavior takes center stage - conduct, not content. They've got it all backwards. I hear you, and appreciate your position. Who's the funniest clown in town?? The list is far too long. Atsme☯^Consult 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A new BLP clause?

I think reception and other sections on BLPs violate NPOV and become magnets for POV pushers. And last year was a watershed moement when a German Court ruled that Wikipedia is liable for the contents of Wikipedia articles even if the material is sourced. WP:BLP is not as strict as it should be, but the common editor does not understand sources whenever they label something "a reliable source" because of its publisher. There is nothing professional or proper about some of the material being pushed, but they also will not relent because their is no clear policy against it. Controversial figures certainly are the targets of such attacks because "it exists", but critical thinking, reason and professionalism seem to be foreign concepts for some. A new essay or BLP clause might need to be created do deal with the deluge of issues and to appropriately respond to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree. Unfortunately when I demur on articles, I routinely get accused of "gaming the system" and of holding biases I quite lack. I did write WP:PIECE but the ones who would most benefit from it seem to prefer the status quo <g>. Collect (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So true. I quite disagree that a book is a "reliable source" for labeling a person a bigot when it gives less then a sentence and messed up its quote. More so, it is not discussed in the actual text, but is a passing and trivial mention in an introduction by the authors and no where else. Books are not infallible, Arming America for instance, but opinions and passing mentions giving no context should not be used at all. Though dismissing such nonsense often results in attracting more of the same ilk like moths to a flame. What results is a bunch of angry persons who do not understand or attempt to shout you down and demoralize good editors. That is clearly toxic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I am watching the Kagan issue play out because it has parallels to the current issue of debate on Emerson - where a trivial mention in passing is being used in the same method. Not sure how you manage to stand up to all this drama. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am quite used to being stalked, and I ran the gauntlet of a votestacked RfC/U some time back. You might look at my sandbox <g>, and read User:Collect/BLP to see just why I stick around. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Eck - I dislike how they say it is censorship when something horrid and weakly sourced is removed per BLP. Then Wikipedia goes from being an encyclopedia to a bathroom stall where all professional and ethical standards are thrown out the window because it is verifiable that someone else wrote something. Verifiability and veracity for BLPs need to be much higher than other articles, but I've got a crash course in how bad BLPs are in the last week or so. Most of them are complete garbage penned by those who find sensational news and tack them on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri Yep - I am in several discussions right now which I think you might find "interesting" (including Bill Cosby), as well as the Kagan ones and the associated AN/I discussions. Feel free to stalk <g>. Collect (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Excessive AGF

You have a banner: "Well-meaning editors: Do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you." Any editor who edits comments by others on a third party's talk page is either an extreme newbie or, more likely, has a strange concept of well-meaning. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

query

To any and all lurkers:

How would one normally interpret a post such as:

There's no question that there are people that aren't Jewish that are associated with the Pro-Israel Lobby.The blog by self-identified progressive Jews might not be an opinion piece, but it did mention the two points in the same article. I do see xxx's point about the possible implication of "divided loyality". On the other hand, there are plenty of politicians (Jews among them) that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc.

Many thanks for all responses. Collect (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it would fit right in at a Bund meeting in the late 30s. "Divided loyalty", Really!?! What page was this at? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the writer is unaware of the history of these accusations or if the person is, in fact, fully aware of these old tropes and recycling the ancient libels. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Kagan

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Kagan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget Kagan - Robert Sears (physician) is a bigger issue with poor sources and synth being used to make a person responsible for an epidemic sourced to blogs and conjecture. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR

You are now on the verge of 3RR, at the Sears article. Friendly notice! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Aim is to obey BLP -- categorizing a person without a reliable source making the claim is per se a violation of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It's evident that you didn't look for a source before proclaiming that there wasn't one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We need a claim of fact from strong reliable sources before we go labelling folks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect is correct. It is a BLP issue to label the subject based on the personal opinions of others despite the subject being clearly in support of vaccines. Sears disagrees on the time table of some vaccines, but his book and words clearly support the MMR vaccine on the normal CDC schedule. This alone says Sears is not anti-vax. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hey Collect -- I get the impression that this is about me. Is that right? It seems very much like a violation of WP:HOUND, complete with personal attacks. And the rest of the sub-page does the same thing about other editors, it seems. Could you please stop? And delete the sub-page? Thanks! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not mention your name once. I do not regard anything on that page as a personal attack,but as a favour to you for asking nicely, I shall blank all your diffs. Would you like User:Collect/BLP also blanked? That was one where an admin specified in the past that it was fully compliant with all policies and guidelines, but I will blank it as well if you desire. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

But is it designed for keeping track of edits by me and other editors? It sure looks like it. And the reason to delete it isn't that I asked nicely but because it is a violation of WP:HOUND. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It was in parallel to User:Collect/BLP covering various concerns and not mentioning any editor by name. The material has now been deleted. It was not done to reduce your enjoyment of Wikipedia nor to impede your edits, nor do I follow you around to respond to your edits. I trust you do not follow my edits, of course. WP:HOUND:Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TPO

Per WP:TPO, do not alter the posts of other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately your removal of a post to which I was replying also made my post appear quite odd. Next time do not be so quick about assertions about other editors lest you be called out for a false claim about them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I redacted it once I noticed the problem. Any subsequent "oddness" in your own post is entirely your fault. Why did you restore it, exactly? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

My post would have looked like the ravings of a lunatic absent the anteceding post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, your post was responding to a deleted post. You shouldn't have restored it or commented on it. You should have taken the high road and ignored the matter. By restoring a deleted comment, which was clearly a "misunderstanding" (edit summary), you were trying to make Nomo look bad and pick a fight. That's very bad form. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I was in an Edit Conflict - and my comment was on point. I would never try to make Nomo look bad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at AE on Joe Klein BLP

Notification of complaint filed at WP:AE about your editing at the above-mentioned BLP complaint.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Post to My Talk Page ?

Did you have a specific reason for posting to my talk page? Were you commenting on the post by Ubikwit (who seems to have a deep grudge against you, probably because you have pushed back on him) to WP:ANI or to WP:AE, or on the post by Nomoskedac? I am going to have to recuse from the Ubikwit post because I am not neutral, but I don't think that was what you meant. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a "head's up" noting your posts at WP:AN/I etc. The "anti-Semitic" post only shows the carelessness of people who wish to attack me <g>, but the AE action seems precisely something which would be of interest to you, I would think, and where your neutrality would be shown by your objectivity. And curiously enough you were the one who had posted the "DS warning" on my talk page, so you might be able then to elucidate whether violations of WP:BLPCAT were envisioned to be protected by that warning. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to follow. I will have to recuse from any ArbCom clerk role if any of these issues go to arbitration. I hope that all of these issues can be resolved without arbitration, but some editors are stubborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it will get that far - WP:BLPCAT is too darn clear. One admin thinks it is "tendentious" to follow WP:BLP which I find to be a very odd position for any admin to take. Collect (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

HJM directed Ubikwit ... to WP:AN/I. I believe the analogy is Groundhog Day (film). Collect (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

British are consistenly removing from Gibraltar article that this territory is under United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories

Why the Administrator allows that? they just delete that and report the users, Why the British are removing a FACT from the article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep2co (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The proper course is set out at WP:CONSENSUS - if you wish an edit on an article, and others disagree, then you must get others to agree with your position - not simply keep making the same edit. You should also read WP:RFC to se one manner of "dispute resolution" which is formally set up. Try looking at some which have been used on other articles and I think you will get an idea of how this process works. It is far from perfect, but can work out if everyone follows the rules. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Gibraltar#Governance The United Nations Committee on Decolonization includes Gibraltar on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.[39] Gibraltar has been on the list since December 1946.[40]

It has always been in the article. Regards, WCM_email 18:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to explain to that editor how the proper process works on WP - I did not actually wish to get involved in the eternal Gibraltar argument <g>. Collect (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Regards from an EVIL FACT REMOVING BRITISH EDITOR, WCM_email 18:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Malvinas Day! <+g> Collect (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

May I tap into your thought process...??

I very much appreciate and admire your neutral mind, Cpt. Bob, but this Clarabelle has a question for you....

As a writer for longer than I care to remember, my first thoughts are always "Did I send my quarterly payment for my E&O policy?" I let it expire last year thinking I didn't need it any longer. Huh? Anyway, I cringe when I hear terms like "conspiracy theorist", "quack", etc. particularly as it applies to professional people who can afford defamation attorneys and drool over E&O policies. WP:BLP clearly states strict adherence to US Laws, right? That's what jumps out at me most. What about the laws in other countries? We know US laws are quite lenient with regards to our 1st Amendment right to freedom of expression....UNLESS....and it's the "unless" that troubles me, so I've provided some links to a couple of those "unlesses" in the US and abroad since Wiki is world-wide.

1. [18] (excerpt) "It took me about five minutes to learn that multiple courts in multiple states in multiple decades have found that calling someone a 'quack' is protected opinion and not subject to a defamation suit.....UNLESS: In the rare cases where courts have not protected terms like 'quack,' they were used in a context specifically suggesting untrue facts. See, e.g., Nasr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 632 F.Supp.1024 (E.D. IL 1986) (though calling a doctor a 'quack' has been found to be protected opinion, when used in manner suggesting false underlying facts, it was actionable)."
2. [19] German court rules that Wikipedia is liable for contents of Wikipedia articles.
3. [20] Whether right or wrong, one still has to defend a defamation suit.

So why are we seeing "pods" of editors fighting against NPOV while insisting on maintaining attack pages and coatracks? I wonder if they've ever actually read a hard cover Encyclopedia Britannica. Atsme☯^Consult 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation will theoretically protect editors. I would point out, moreover, that lawsuits have been filed against Wikipedia editors in the past - notably see Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_5#Lawsuit_against_WMF_in_the_article? which disappeared -- but no one knows for certain how a court would rule. Collect (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

EW at Jeb Bush

You have made three reverts at Jeb Bush. You seem very determined to provide a lot of explanations for Bush publishing massive amounts of email correspondence, but I suggest slowing down.- MrX 00:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And note the WP:BLP/N section thereon. And the explanation is from the horridly POV Christian Science Monitor - and you are the very first editor who has seemed to call them POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

re Proposed quote:

Never underestimate the power of inertia on Wikipedia

Attribute as needed <g> Collect (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but okay. — Cirt (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Joci causa - it appears that trying to get any changes done on Wikipedia takes aeons. Collect (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP

Not to make too big a deal about it (which is why I'm dropping you this note here, not there), but if it's not BLP compliant, you probably don't want to quote it on ANI. Guettarda (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It mentions no names at all. Hard to see how it could be more BLP compliant - the aim is to show that there are, indeed, editors for who BLP is a minor annoyance in the path to making sure readers know how evil a living person is, and to ask the reader to follow that policy. . Collect (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was talking about your quote from the sourcewatch article about Drudge. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Collect (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Hi Collect. Now that all the discussion about the controversy page has died down, I've sort of been poking around for someone that may have an interest in working out the regular Heather Bresch page so it provides a more complete bio. Usually I bring articles where I have a COI up to the GA rank, while following the Bright Line, by offering content for consideration. You came to mind because you are active on BLPN and I don't think I've bugged you in a while. I try to spread myself around sort of speak, so I'm not a pest to any one editor.

If you have an interest in chipping in, I've submitted a short bit of content regarding her start at Mylan here and your input would be welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 23:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

From AE

Hi Collect, I thought I'd continue our discussion from AE here.

@Callanecc Either "1RR per week" or a variant which would not count clear attempts at compromise language as reverts (which I have always felt should be encouraged in cases of reasonable disagreement as to language). I also feel that reverts of a closing admin's edit may need to be dealt with at some point - perhaps WP should take a position that an edit done by an admin in affirmation of a close by that admin should be directly connected to any appeal of such a close? Collect (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to think of something which might work but 1RR/week was the only thing I could think of which wasn't subjective. I was considering something like enacting closes of discussions are exempt from the 1RR, but that was one of the issues (every one had a different interpretation) involved. Any ideas?

I agree, except I think it should be any uninvolved editor in affirmation of their close is subject to 0RR, but I suspect there there will be a large amount of opposition. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are times where the opposition to anything new seems impossible to overcome - but I think you will find it can be done (see the discussions at Meta where changes finally did occur, vide [21]), despite the tendency of some to say "no" to any changes at all. Also note the fact that Wikipedia's BLP policy has gradually been strengthened, even though some of the worst offenders seem to eventually reappear, something which ought to concern more people than it does.

Off the top of my head, perhaps the most that ArbCom could do now is declare that any proposed reverts of edits made as a direct result of an RfC must be proposed at AN so that people not involved in the dispute could determine whether such proposed edits are in concord with the close? That is, the uninvolved editors could not alter the close, but only affirm the actual result with regard to any proposed edits? I know some would say "no more rules" but the fact is some of the current rules have no strength when faced with adamant editors. Collect (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I find the definition of incivility to be excessively labile on Wikipedia - some folks use extensive litanies of cuss words and be favoured, while some who are punctilious in language get accused of destroying the project - almost as though other factors were being considered, and the "civility" issue is a handy tote bag :( Collect (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering....

How you acquired such an amazing command of the English language watching Howdy Doody? Atsme☯^Consult 20:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Cowabunga, dude! Mother was a Latin teacher, father worked on Manhattan Project - he taught me chess at 5, she taught me bridge at 8. I finished the Complete Works of Mark Twain (old Harper edition) by the time I was 10. Absolutely sickening background. Collect (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Cowabunga back!! I am duly impressed. We must play chess some day, and after you beat the socks off me, we'll shoot a game of pool and play shuffleboard. If I don't win at either or both, we will move outside to the cutting pen for a two person cutting horse competition. I will provide the cattle and horses. Bridge - not so much, definitely not Scrabble with you, but maybe Yahtzee. My Mother is Italian - close enough. My Dad bombed out on a few financial endeavors - close enough. They taught me how to work for a living. My Mother's Italian-English was my inspiration to learn more about proper English. I started reading the Encyclopedia Britannica when I was....can't remember how old...3 maybe...but a lot of it was read to me in Italish. Atsme☯^Consult 21:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

An equestrian I am not <g>. First rodeo I saw was at Madison Square Garden in the 50s - and it is not exactly Calgary (which I have also seen now). On a Caribbean vacation I thought I had to try riding -- spent about 20 hours in one week without getting sore (which made a bunch of folks angry - I had fencing in college and already knew enough to stretch first) -- Also saw Gene Autry and Champion there, and Roy Rogers and Trigger (not stuffed). Collect (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hrmpf. Didn't get saddle sore? Now that's a stretch. I'm jealous - you got to see Roy & Trigger, and Gene & Champion. All I have are pictures. To demonstrate how much I loved horses, I didn't want to be Roy or Dale when I grew up, I wanted to be Trigger. Uh huh, telling the truth. I'm over it now. Atsme☯^Consult 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fencing exercises include quite a great deal of leg stretching. Collect (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please not that I closed the discussion with a warning for you. Whereas I believe that some of your reverts were clearly addressed BLP violations, I believe that other reverts were not necessary. The full closure is available at the link above.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The reverts were called for by WP:BLP, I used noticeboards assiduously for discussions, and I find this warning to be stale at best and deleterious at worst. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly note my talk page edits: [22] and my involvement in 2014 on basically the same type of issue. Pray tell -- what are the exact words in the radio programme which support the claims you wish to use it for? Collect (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive148#Pro-life_feminism where one of those now involved stated: I'm not involved on that article, but allow me to correct a misimpression: the source is not "unverifiable" (anyway it's content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) , Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive194#Irish_homophobia_controversy.2C_3_biographies_that_need_oversight with one person saying Sometimes we come up against the limits of mindless whimpering of"BLP". As any reasonable reading of the material in question shows, this is one of those times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I trust this goves some salient background about the source of the persistent OP here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Something I learned recently...

When an editor drops the stick and backs away, he usually ends up getting beat with it. The same applies when he extends an olive branch. So what are our options?

1. Keep the stick and sit on the dead horse until it smells so bad you have to leave.
2. Enjoy the olives, and keep the stick. You may need it for your next horse.

I was advised that consult no longer means what I think it means, therefore I can longer consult you to read anything which further proves a stick may come in handy. Atsme☯^Consult 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing articles - over 200 different in last 500 article edits

In my last 500 article edits, over 200 were to different articles. No "typo fixes" included. Collect (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For those who think BLP defender my ass… is a smart sort of comment to make to editors who actually take that policy seriously. Collect (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Userpage issue

Since this came up in discussion recently, it's my view that User:Collect/BLP violates Wikipedia's standards for userpages, specifically WP:POLEMIC. Our standards forbid:

• Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
• Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Your user subpage contains a laundry list of perceived wrongs committed by other editors. It has no constructive value in terms of dispute resolution, since (oddly) it doesn't even contain diffs of the comments in question. Moreover, you've made no substantive edits to this laundry list in more than 5 years, making a mockery of the requirement that such material be used "in a timely manner". Would you be willing to blank this page or request its deletion, in accordance with the userpage guidelines, and avoid using your userpages in such a manner in the future? MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I vetted it with User:Newyorkbrad at the time - and all names are redacted. Is there any particular editor you feel that page is aimed at now? I have used it as a mini-essay explaining why I am adamant about WP:BLP. (I can't render a definitive opinion on the material without seeing it in its original context—which you have very properly redacted—but on skimming it over it appears to be pretty unimpressive stuff. Is any of this still in our articles? You can respond by e-mail if you'd prefer not to call attention to it on-wiki. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)) Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Which actually brings up a question about MastCell's page because I actually copied a section titled The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia that I am now concerned may be considered WP:POLEMIC. Does that mean MastCell and editors who copied that section are in trouble now? I'm deleting it from my user page now because I clearly don't want to be accused of having polemic crap on my user page. Atsme☯^Consult 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ask at any appropriate noticeboard. Collect (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Far be it from me to contradict Newyorkbrad, but I read his comment as suggesting that your collection of perceived BLP violations is "pretty unimpressive stuff". (You should really get in the habit of providing diffs rather than quoting people out of context). I don't see that his comment has any bearing on whether the page meets WP:UP. Regardless, Brad's comment was made in May 2009. Since then you have maintained this "laundry list of wrongs" for more than 5 years. You have no apparent intent to use this material in dispute resolution (and it has no value in any case, since it does not contain diffs), and it has no value as an essay since it's a nearly incoherent collection of altered quotes without context or narrative. I don't see any way that this doesn't violate WP:UP#POLEMIC. If you actually disagree, then I will go ahead and take it to WP:MFD for outside opinions. MastCell ^Talk 02:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As I do use it as an essay, I regret that you seem to take your apparent position. And it is precisely the lack of diffs which makes it a valid essay. As for "altered quote" that is simply untrue - they are actual quotes altered only to make sure it was not an "attack page" of any ilk. Collect (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

AN said not polemic, therefore as you already surmised neither is yours. I also noticed some real polemic stuff out there on user pages - some of it downright hateful about political affiliations. No worry if you slant left. If you don't slant, you probably don't have anything polemic on your page anyway. --Atsme☯^Consult 14:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur A. Dole

Cool, who knew! Now a whole 'nother direction to go look. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how deep the results will be - but definitely far more interesting than "retired professor." Collect (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Frank LaGrotta

Curious, why do you believe the secondary infobox not useful? Is it because it's secondary (you think that it ought not have multiple infoboxes), or because you believe it ought to be used only for people known primarily as criminals (i.e. not for politicians who've gotten minor convictions), or do you have a different reason? Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Where the second infobox is not related to the person's primary notability and the information in it is basically adjacent to the infobox, the need for an infobox (whose purpose is to give an overall short view of facts, but not to act as a substitute for reading the biography) is greatly reduced. Else there are many people who could have five or more infoboxen <g> You should note the huge array of infoboxes available if you doubt that. Note that this removes no actual information from the biography as a rule -- only suggest that the main infobox pertains to the main reason a person is going to look at it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Amy Pascal

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Amy Pascal. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Rick Santorum revert

The discussion I see in the TP archives is about giving the 'definition' in the article, I did not add the definition, and I agree it would be inappropriate, but the issue is already discussed, and the neologism article ALREADY linked and discussed in the article body. Your es is misleading, the only discussion I see about a link in the See Also section was in 2012, about removing the discussion from the article itself and instead making it a See Also entry. The neologism article is obviously within the scope of a See Also list (as would be Santorum Amendment and Gang of Seven as well). It is a 'related article', and complaining about a link to something that is already linked is rather silly IMO. Revent^talk 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it 'explict', MOS:SEEALSO specifically states that a purpose of a See Also list is "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", which clearly applies. Revent^talk 16:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was found not to be relevant as a "see also" to the biography of a living person. It is already linked in the body of the BLP which I think you had not noticed. Collect (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, I actually said "the issue is already discussed, and the neologism article ALREADY linked and discussed in the article body". Looking at the archive, I see no indication of that there was such a consensus, but I do see evidence that you have apparently edit warred in the past about mentioning the neologism at all. Revent^talk

@Revent: Why are you arguing about this? "... the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: The MOS makes that 'statement', but that's not the usual practice.... I would dare say it's far more common that every single link in a See Also is also in the body. If someone wants to avoid an argument, it's usually a good idea to not reply to them in a way that makes it obvious you didn't read what they wrote. From what I see in the talk page history, what Collect wrote in the es of his revert was misleading (if not just wrong), and you are 'supposed' to discuss thing with a person if you disagree with them about a content issue. Why are you objecting to my trying to have a discussion? Revent^talk 16:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: No, that is usual practice. If you think it's not, suggest a change to MOS:SEEALSO. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view, it is also usual practce. When I occasionally see links in Seealso which are also in the article I remove them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

TBH, I'm far more interested in what I was trying to discuss (an actual content issue) than getting sidetracked into some MOS argument about how 'general' that something stated as 'general' is when it's also described as 'ultimately a matter of editorial judgement'. I get the strong impression it's a pointless conversation to try to have here, though, sadly.

@Ymblanter: Just looking at a random (literally the first one I blindly clicked one off the list) FA, over half of the 'See Also' links are in the body, and two are in the first paragraph of the lead. It's really not uncommon at all. Maybe it arguably 'should be', but it's really, really not. It's extremely common. Revent^talk 18:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is one of 4000+ pages on my watchlist -- and I try to follow guidelines and policies even when some get upset. Collect (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Any 'upset' on my part is more to do with the way the conversation here went than being reverted. I would think it would be rather obvious why I would question a revert to remove a wikilink with the es 'often discussed on talk pages - never allowed - that link is more about Savage than Santorum' when looking at the talk page archive then shows that same person apparently lost an argument to remove all mention of the subject of the wikilink from the article. I'd also think it would be obvious why I would object to an attempt to discuss it getting a response that makes it clear the person didn't read what I wrote, and someone else then chiming in with 'why are you arguing about this'. Hard to not take such a thing as 'screw BRD and your opinion, we OWN this.' Not that I'm accusing you of bad faith, specifically, but the phrase 'fuck it' comes directly to mind. Makes me once again wonder why I bother. (sigh) Revent^talk 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Oh, now I see. I thought those two sentences were repetitive, but now I see they are actually referring to different things. I may be obsessing on it too much, so I'm gonna dial off of it for a couple weeks or so unless I'm called upon. It looks like the page is already in good hands at this point without me and I'm being more annoying than helpful. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 19:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I noted that you removed my changes to the Legal affairs section and reverted it to an earlier version on the basis of perceived POV. Your objections:

• 1. "no stranger to corporate bankruptcies": I can reword this phrase (although it is unclear why a verifiable comment is POV),
• 2. "Trump indicated that he uses “the laws of my country to my advantage" may be POV here": that is what he said so how can it be POV, but it can be rewritten,
• 3."etc.": - a meaningless comment, it is all documented material, none of it my personal opinion.

I'll be happy to rewrite what might be construed as POV, but point it out in a some constructive fashion. Don't we want to write a better encyclopedia? The current version of the legal section does not cut it: written over time by many well meaning contributors it lacks coherence, is confusing, and painful to read. His bankruptcy dealings are unclear (how many?, corporate?, personal?, strategy?) and admixed with other totally unrelated legal stuff, a game reward even thrown in for good luck.Ekem (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The aim is to abide by all policies and guidelines.

Here there are two prime considerations: WP:BLP which requires all claims to be sourced, and WP:NPOV that we use absolutely neutral wording and point of view. If a person can discern a point of view in Wikipedia's voice, we have failed.

This means,moreover, that the florid wording found in too many early Wikipedia articles is in disfavour in favour of reasonable readability and pretty straightforward use of facts. See [23] if you wish to determine just how unreadable most of Wikipedia is. In general, trying to educe "number of filings" may run afoul of WP:OR which basically says we only say what the reliable sources say. If they do not reach a specific conclusion, neither ought we. I hope this helps. Collect (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not helping so far. It would be helpful if you are specific and point out what section I had added (other than 1. and 2. as above) are, in your opinion, POV. Please clarify. Thanks.Ekem (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I want you to improve the article. Just think to yourself as you write whether the information is well-sourced and factual, and whether you are wording it so the reader will not have any idea whether you like the topic or not <g>. If someone in a source is clearly showing an opinion - then call it an opinion and say who holds it. And do relatively modest edits until you understand this - huge edit tend to be looked at far more loosely than single paragraphs for changes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom

Re Sam Harris article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Collect (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Langone page

Thank you for being rational about this, it seems that we agree about proper research, attribution and accuracy beyond most other editors. I didn't want to improve the page because this seems to be a pattern with Cwobeel in particular and the false information tends to stick around simply because it appears "sourced". Even when it makes a conclusion not supported by the facts or any sound reasoning - I think most of this comes from misusing Google books. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

He seems to have "idée fixe" on a great many biographical pages <g>. I tend to actually read too many sources at times, and I have a couple of editors who appear to monitor my every move at times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a fun edit which shows Cwobeel removing the ACLU source containing a document - replacing with the false and erroneous source that something does not exist. Idée fixe is an understatement.<g> ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request...

Would you be so kind as to review the following? [24] Is there anything you can extract from it that you can modify to be more NPOV compliant? Atsme☯^Consult 20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Short trimming with hedge clippers:(also removing cites as they mess up readability index values)

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, documentary filmmaker and lecturer. His writings focus on a wide range of controversial topics including alternative medicine, and politics.

Griffin began his media career as a child actor, and later an assistant announcer for an NPR station at the University of Michigan, from which he graduated in 1953 with a Bachelor of Science degree.

His writing career began with Fearful Master, published in 1964. The book focuses on the United Nations (UN) and what Griffin theorizes as the structure of the UN and how it functions. He also started producing videos on the same topics.

Griffin is noted for The Creature From Jekyll Island, (1994), which explores the history and goals of the Federal Reserve System in a critical manner. In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who the book highly. Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a critical review of that interview stating, "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories."

In the 1970s, Griffin wrote World Without Cancer (1974), about Laetrile, which is currently banned in the US as it is scientifically unsupported. Griffin used a disclaimer stating "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery."

Note that I suggest a first editing run-through. Readability up to 48. Word count 225 Now looking for what is "most important" for a reader in the lead of any BLP.

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, filmmaker and lecturer. He focusses on a wide range of controversial topics including alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, and politics.

He started as a child actor, and was later an assistant announcer for an NPR station at the University of Michigan, from which he graduated in 1953 with a Bachelor of Science degree.

His writing career began with Fearful Master, published in 1964. It focusses on the United Nations (UN) and what Griffin theorizes as the structure of the UN and how it functions. He also started producing videos on the same topics.

Love it the brevity!! I would support it without hesitation. Atsme☯^Consult 22:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin wrote The Creature From Jekyll Island, (1994), which explores the history and goals of the Federal Reserve System in a critical manner.

In the 1970s, Griffin wrote World Without Cancer (1974), about Laetrile, currently banned in the US as scientifically unsupported. Griffin noted "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery."

Second cut: 171 words, 49 RI. And so on. Always make sure to include phrases which are likely to be essential to reach compromise which should always be your goal. Do you see the process used? Collect (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You do it. They will only revert me. Something about a burr under their saddle. Cowabunga! Atsme☯^Consult 22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

One horse in the race at a time is my view - let's see if it is a winner. Collect (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Charles B. Rangel

I know you don't want me posting here. And I usually wouldn't. But blind-reverting with a wrong rationale is not something I can let pass. I don't claim anywhere at Charles B. Rangel that the previous consensus was voided. My edit does not implement the previous before the previous consensus, but follows explicitly the instructions by Guy in his closing rationale. Which you opposed to have amended. SSo, now cool down and sit on it for a while, I would say a week of discussion on the talk page is appropriate. Anymore reverts, and ANI will have a thread about somebody who does not respect a closing rationale by an uninvolved admin. It's always in order to discuss, but not to act contrary to, consensus. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The clear prior consensus in accord with biographical relevance was status quo ante on Rangel. And note I have asked Guy whether your edit was what he intended as a result, so your AN/I threat is inane at best, and a fairly serious deterrent to any future ArbCom hopes you might harbor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you drink a cup of ice-tea. And then: Certainly, Rangel was one of the few pages where the previous consensus was implemented. And it was the example mentioned in the RfC. So I started right there. I trust you see my reasons, I don't do anything randomly. First you oppose my asking for clarification, and insist that the closing "was fine", now you ask Guy about what it meant? Well, I'm sure we'll sort it out one day. But please remember: Discuss first, revert later; and revert only if there's a reason to do so. Then we can remain wiki-friends. And now I'll take my leave from your talk page again. Kraxler (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As you are the only one implementing anything, the cup of tea should be yours. The bullshit that the RfC did not affect the prior RfC was clearly that --your apparent and primary intent appears to have been to make that specific edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No, my intent is to implement the new format, per consensus, at all Congressmen pages. Rangel was just the fisrt step required under the instructions of the closer. I'll add more examples soon, let's say one per day, to test the ground, and see whether there's opposition, or whether there's acceptance, which doesn't mea whether you oppose or accept. The closer saw clear consensus for the new proposal, he only thought there was not enough people opining. Since you already opined at the RfC, your opinion becomes irrelevant for this process, it's known. The intention is to get wider input. I suggest you leave the battlefield, and start thinking about the issue. As I said, I'm always willing and ready to discuss anything. But I'm not a big friend of personal attacks, it's not nice to tell somebody he's inane, threaten something about ArbCom (couldn't make heads or tails out of that passage of your previous post) or suspecting someone to have a hidden agenda with the sole intention to attack you or articles owned by you. I suggest you cease to discuss my person or my intentions and just discuss the merits of certain edits or formats, as related to Wikipedia, not as to who made them. Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And I disagree. As for finding your own opinion "relevant" and my opinion "irrelevant" I also demur. The listing of a soup of district numbers and 'not listing the dates for which they are relevant, alas, seems rather a step backward in utility for readers. I think you feel otherwise. And I do not own any articles, and I find that particular claim offensive to the nth degree. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see my post on Guy's talk page, this whole discussion will become moot in a short time. And, as an experienced editor, you should know better than start forum shopping right away when you don't like something. Opening a thread on NewYorkBrad's talk page, and pester him after he declined to act, and opening an RfC concerning the just closed RfC are not helpful moves. Kraxler (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Guy said he did not intend for you to act as you did. That seems to go well beyond the cautious approach I advocated is pretty clear. And RfCs are a proper course for dispute resolution, as you know. Collect (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A closing rationale that is first said to be fine, and then needs to be "interpreted" or "explained" with vague statements by the closer, and which then needs a new RfC to try to establish the meaning of it, speaks for itself. Let's call a truce for now. Guy having declined to unclose the RfC, the case will be reported at ANI tomorrow. I'm gathering evidence in the meanwhile, and you're welcome to comment there as soon as it is on. Let's rest it here for now. Kraxler (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the proposed modification? Collect (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "proposed modification", it's a full-fledged amendment. Thanks for pointing it out. The last word has not been spoken yet, we can be sure. As I said, since JzG asked me politely to have his close reviewed, I'll do so. By the way, could you tell me, why 14 people are enough to establish consensus to a change on a template that is "transcluded on nearly ninety thousand pages" (Does he really think there have been 90,000 congressmen since 1789? Well,...) but 20 people can not. Well, never mind, he shall answer that at ANI, in due time, I suppose. Kraxler (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(od) Can you tell me why you went into full fledged edit war mode? Wikipedia routinely has RfCs decided by fairly small numbers - and that is how it has always been when a cogent argument that the "old way" males no sense at all is made. Collect (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war mode? Could you explain what you mean by that? Is there an edit-war going on somewhere? Kraxler (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Any threat on the order of "one more edit and this goes to AN/I" sure sounds like that poster has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality -- just as accusing admins willy-nilly of being WP:INVOLVED and making accusations on their talk pages is not all that likely to persuade them of anything at all. Verbum sapiens. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, there was first one revert by you, with a misleading edit summary, and then one revert by me with an explanation on the talk page. Could you point me to a guideline which says that is an edit-war? I asumed you made a mistake. The strong wording was only meant to make you look at the talk page, because your revert was a knee-jerk blind-revert, not covered by the edit summary. And it served its purpose, no more reverts, discussion started... Kraxler (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Higher and Deeper then? You now accuse me of a "misleading edit summary"? It was per instructions at Template:Infobox officeholder. Will you note the instructions there? I shall refresh your memory:

Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I stated in my edit summary when I changed the format "changed box under instructions from the closing rationale at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox" (my bolding). That makes it clear that I was not claiming that any previous consensus was voided, but that I followed the instruction to do a trial of the new format. Why does one need to explain the obvious to you all the time? Kraxler (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read your posts before hitting enter - if anyone wrote to you with that tone, what would be your response? Be glad I do not respond as I suspect most people would. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case declined

Hi Collect, this is a note to let you know that the Sam Harris BLP Arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Major surprise. Collect (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MIT Science Fiction Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noreascon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Project for the New American Century

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Project for the New American Century. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Project for the New American Century

Hi Collect,

I know you and Ubikwit were arguing about this before I barged into the debate today, but since I'm now involved - can I request that you reword the statement of the RFC? Ubikwit is the one saying the quote should be removed as UNDUE, but that doesn't properly characterize my position here. My position, as I've stated several times on the talk page, is that there's no need to quote Meacher in such length when the article could simply state his opinions, and use the sources I linked (and any other reliable sources anyone cares to dig up) as a counterpoint. As I've already said repeatedly, I've got no problem with a statement acknowledging his views about 9-11: I simply see no need for a lengthy quote from the horse's mouth. That article is already a huge mess of over-long quotes, which I fully intend to continue cutting down/summarizing/condensing once the AFC is resolved.Fyddlestix (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the ArbCom shopping done by Ubikwit and all his posts in the last month at AN/I. I also ask you to give me a little more credence than you have so far. Ubikwit only wants what he agrees with in any article, even where the same source has material diametrically opposed to his position. I had suggested Meacher was a rather poor source in the first place but he insisted on using him, so use him we shall -- and using him showing his actual and accurate position. Pushing 9/11 conspiracies is, IMHO, pushing WP:FRINGE to the breaking point.Collect (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) what the deal is between you and Ubikwit, that's irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the PNAC page. Since you seem unwilling to change it per my request, I've added an alternative statement to the RFC as this section of WP:RFC indicates that I have a right to do. Nothing personal, I just don't think your statement correctly characterized the question being debated or my views on the matter.Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI I've posted a link to the RFC over at the NPOV noticeboardFyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I rather think you should consider the temperament of an editor who told an admin: @xxxx You are a block-happy admin tool, and you are not welcome on this page after this block expires or is lifted. I hope that is also "crystal clear". Fuck off. and similar cases of moderate incivility to a great number of editors, and not just with me.

In at least one case, his comments had to be oversighted they were so far off the wall. He made a "legal threat" to an Arbitrator, of all things (read his talk page). "Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=613730106" shows an editor accusing me specifically of tag teaming! ("But if there does have to be sanctions, my view would be they are most deserved by Collect, for edit warring as part of a tag team.") and the like. Collect (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

American Left Arbmin adcom wikidrama thing

Hi! Wasn't that fun? I noticed the RfC is still open at the talk page. Check out my user page for the play-by-play. When I come back in 2017, if you want to take the article back from the other team again, just let me know! I'll claim it for a day or two and then your team can have it again. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could refer to the page User:Flying_Jazz inside Talk:American Left. I've mentioned it to you and Ghostofnemo, but The Four Deuces, Ubikwit, and others looking in at the RfC might not have seen it yet. I regard Wikipedia as a sortakinda semi-closed community of encyclopedia-makers, and the four of you seem to have more experience here than I do at discussing political matters. Maybe the four of you could work something out or, if you're patient, help could arrive before my return in 2017. Flying Jazz (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm considering heading over to some editors on the German Wikipedia with the pdf at [25] . They may enjoy my userpage after I point out to them the predicament that you, Ghostofnemo, The Four Deuces, and Ubikwit, and others seem to be having at Talk:American Left. That's probably against some rule, but it could be the case that we English speakers at Wikipedia might not be able to figure such things out for ourselves. If the Germans aren't willing or able to help, at least they'll be amused by the situation. It shouldn't be too hard to find French translations of similar things. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No. I'll save the French for later. After the Germans, it will be the Swedes! Or maybe I'll start with the Swedes instead of the Germans. There are so many options, and it's difficult to know what's best. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I find German easier than French -- never learned much other than God Jul in Swedish. Because of the nature of a two party system, neither party can really get too far from the center, while some foreign nations seem to have almost no one actually be in the center at times <g>. Collect (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand the Swedish mentality and Swedish idea of fun because I've known more Swedes. They're more likely to have that very appealing do-what-you-like mentality. That Pewdiepie guy really likes video games. That's why so many young people in the US watch him. Watching someone do what they enjoy is enjoyable! Other Swedes really like words and ideas. They might enjoy what I'm doing here. Or maybe not. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ingmar Bergman movies are lots of fun. TFD (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well...none of the Swedes I've met were like Ingmar Bergman movies. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. On second thought, the few Swedes I've gotten to know well actually were like Ingmar Bergman movies. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no difference between the scope of the article and what Norman Birnbaum writes. TFD (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you writing about the scope of the current article's lead or the scope of the current article's body? The two seem very different now! Have you seen User:Flying Jazz ? Flying Jazz (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead provides the scope of an article/summarizes what is in an article. You have never explained what you mean by "elements...who believe radical equality can be accommodated into existing capitalist structures." Who are they? TFD (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess...depending on exactly what's meant by radical equality and existing capitalist structures, they might be a huge majority of the US population or they might not even exist at all. How am I supposed to know? I was just citing Buhle correctly. You're the one who found The Encyclopedia of the American Left and cited it incorrectly the first time. Don't you know who they are? Flying Jazz (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So you added text to the lead without knowing what it meant or how it might affect the scope of the article. And if you do not know what the source meant, how do you know you have paraphrased it correctly? It seems to me that type of action while likely to get a reaction from other editors is unlikely to improve the article, which puts it on a par with trolling. TFD (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. I know what the words mean. I know how to paraphrase. I'm thrilled that I got a reaction from other editors. You are confusing the meaning of words with the identity and the size of the subgroups of the US population depicted by the words. Words describe ideas, not who "they" are or aren't. Engage with text. Engage with ideas. I recommend that you stop worrying, for now at least, about exactly who Buhle meant by "they." That's not a matter for the lead. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Or engage using precise claims backed up by specific reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Buhle's encyclopedia prefaces—after correcting the verification failure—are a reliable, specific, scope-defining secondary source for a precise claim about ideological scope. I presume that's why TFD chose to use the outdated preface from 2010 to 2015. Other reliable secondary sources include claims about demographic scope, but they are outside my area of interest or knowledge. Hence the "How am I supposed to know?" comment above. Fortunately, EllenCT has pointed out a number of specific reliable secondary sources about the demographic identity of the American Left in the Talk page recently. But, as usual, certain editors conveniently ignore and misrepresent plain text and references that are intended to serve the reader. My apologies if I'm violating some talk-page rule thingie for writing here this week. I freely confess to cluelessness about certain wikirules. Flying Jazz (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not just focus on one clause?

The final clause of the lead of American Left used to be:

...Americans frequently use the term "left-wing" to refer to radicalism or even liberalism. [26].

It was unsourced. It had been there from 2010 when TFD created the article [27] until my edits a couple weeks ago. When multiple editors, one after another, complained about the entire article in the talk page, they were ignored repeatedly in the most absurd ways. Small changes to the unsourced sentence were reverted. A vandal blanked the page and replaced it with "This is BS." You and TFD (mostly TFD) defended that unsourced sentence in that article for five years until I removed it as part of my edits that you then reverted with "BRD without prejudice" language, returning unsourced, laughably POV material. Then after a short time with Ubikwit and Ghostofnemo, the final clause in the lead briefly became:

...the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party is almost evenly divided between left-of-center liberals and more centrist moderates.

Aren't the four of you aware of how deliciously hypocritical and hilariously pathetic you seem as you all grasp at straws to get your way? When you now write "engage using precise claims backed up by specific reliable sources," can you hear people who want to build an encyclopedia laughing at you? Flying Jazz (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The Swedes will be amused. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Project for the New American Century. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ^X 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

As I did not edit war on that page, and did not ask Ubikwit to be blocked either, I do not know what else I can do here. I dealt with him politely, and that is about all I can do. I would point out.moreover, that Ubikwit has a couple of active "final warnings" for his apparent battleground attitude on at least four areas, noting his multiple current topic bans. I further note that some of my edits were absolutely pursuant to WP:BLP. I can plead guilty to letting him have plenty of rope, but that is about it. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes you did edit war. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am certain I edit warred by that definition. My reasoning about WP:BLP and how I got to PNAC is below. I shall continue to hold firm beliefs about categorizing people, and about using opinion sources to categorize people, and I suggest that is proper on my part. I also suggest PNAC be protected. I also point out that [28] included material which had been specifically removed as WP:SYNTH and violative of WP:BLP as making a claim in Wikipedia's voice via a "table" of guilt by association. The person making those BLP violating claims was warned [29] on 24 Feb for BLP violation and edit war, [30] on 17 Feb for BLP discretionary sanctions, etc. and adding "guilt by association" to an article subject to WP:BLP certainly applies. I shall in future still remove "guilt by association" and "labelling by religion without self-identification" claims pertaining to BLPs. Collect (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am certain I edit warred by that definition. My reasoning about [[WP:BLP]] and how I got to PNAC is below. I shall continue to hold firm beliefs about categorizing people, and about using opinion sources to categorize people, and I suggest that is proper on my part. I also suggest PNAC be protected. I also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=649508799&oldid=649508441] included material which had been specifically removed as [[WP:SYNTH]] and violative of [[WP:BLP]] as making a claim in Wikipedia's voice via a "table" of [[guilt by association]]. The person making those BLP violating claims was warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ubikwit&diff=648898460&oldid=648889651] on 24 Feb for BLP violation and edit war, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ubikwit&diff=647568483&oldid=647059116] on 17 Feb for BLP discretionary sanctions, etc. and adding "guilt by association" to an article subject to [[WP:BLP]] certainly applies. I shall in future still remove "guilt by association" and "labelling by religion without self-identification" claims pertaining to BLPs. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect#top|talk]]) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am certain I edit warred by that definition. My reasoning about [[WP:BLP]] and how I got to PNAC is below. I shall continue to hold firm beliefs about categorizing people, and about using opinion sources to categorize people, and I suggest that is proper on my part. I also suggest PNAC be protected. I also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=649508799&oldid=649508441] included material which had been specifically removed as [[WP:SYNTH]] and violative of [[WP:BLP]] as making a claim in Wikipedia's voice via a "table" of [[guilt by association]]. The person making those BLP violating claims was warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ubikwit&diff=648898460&oldid=648889651] on 24 Feb for BLP violation and edit war, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ubikwit&diff=647568483&oldid=647059116] on 17 Feb for BLP discretionary sanctions, etc. and adding "guilt by association" to an article subject to [[WP:BLP]] certainly applies. I shall in future still remove "guilt by association" and "labelling by religion without self-identification" claims pertaining to BLPs. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect#top|talk]]) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am certain I edit warred by that definition. My reasoning about [[WP:BLP]] and how I got to PNAC is below. I shall continue to hold firm beliefs about categorizing people, and about using opinion sources to categorize people, and I suggest that is proper on my part. I also suggest PNAC be protected. I also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=649508799&oldid=649508441] included material which had been specifically removed as [[WP:SYNTH]] and violative of [[WP:BLP]] as making a claim in Wikipedia's voice via a "table" of [[guilt by association]]. The person making those BLP violating claims was warned [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ubikwit&diff=648898460&oldid=648889651] on 24 Feb for BLP violation and edit war, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ubikwit&diff=647568483&oldid=647059116] on 17 Feb for BLP discretionary sanctions, etc. and adding "guilt by association" to an article subject to [[WP:BLP]] certainly applies. I shall in future still remove "guilt by association" and "labelling by religion without self-identification" claims pertaining to BLPs. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect#top|talk]]) 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

@Swarm: Why did you block Collect for a week when it's clear that there were other guilty parties involved in the content dispute? Collect did breach 3RR but so did one or two others by the looks of it? I don't think blocking for a week is and not so much as a warning to the others is the solution here. I think a page protect and encouragement to discuss on the talk page would have been more productive. Then if they continue dish out blocks, forgive me if I've missed anything but that's how it initially seems to me..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WRT seeking consensus, I assiduously used the noticeboards and RfC dispute resolution process in accord with policy and guidelines. Collect (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I do have some concern with regard to Ubikwit suggesting that another editor now get busy ("the more you get accomplished in the interim, the better" sounds far too close to seeking assistance in unbalancing that article entirely) on the article in question, and trust that such acts will be monitored. I would also point out that his I/P topic ban specifically included talk pages - and he did not remove any of his posts on the talk page, and that a topic ban bars any edits - which he certainly violated. Self-reverting a revert when one has made other edits is not a cure and the edits appear on its face to be in violation of his topic ban, alas. Collect (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) After a mere 2 hours - 6K added to article, and the 9/11 conspiracy category is removed, as is the "see also" for it. As is a reference which dated back to early 2007 in the article (but which likely was not useful IPOF) Collect (talk)

• Firstly, I provided a detailed breakdown of a protracted edit war between you and Ubikwit on that page and linked to it in your block log, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about. Second, this edit warring block takes no position on the merits of either editor's position in the content dispute, but I did spend a considerable amount of time reading the relevant discussions and I didn't see any sort of consensus that Ubikwit was acting disruptively and needed to be reverted by you. Plenty of arguing, not much agreement at all. Thirdly, you seem to have a habit where you throw out arguments and excuses and blame left and right but act as if you can do no wrong, that you're right no matter what and that your opponent is hellbent on destroying the encyclopedia and you're only trying to prevent that. But your actions simply don't reflect that. I actually always had a positive impression of you and certainly didn't expect to be blocking you for a week, but after a couple hours reviewing your AN3 report I was pretty surprised by the behavior I found and came to the conclusion that this is what was necessary. And you've completely victimized yourself in reponse, admitting exactly no wrongdoing except "letting him have plenty of rope". You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring. Swarm ^X 03:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I rather think you ought to have noted my steps taken in proper dispute resolution including timely noticeboard and RfC usage. I regret acting in a manner which led you to believe that I was seeking disruption, as such was assuredly not my intent. I do tend to take WP:BLP quite seriously, and react too strongly at times when I feel that BLP is being violated - I edit with the same principles for Kim Jong-un as for editing anyone else - political values are not the basis of my editing positions. or that I make no apologies at all, just that I likely should have tempered my responses further - and likely should return to my position of avoiding the dramah boards utterly. That said, and noting the only purpose of a block is for prevention and not for punishment, I shall avoid any ANEW complaints for at least three months, and likely longer as that venue is not conducive to collegial editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently "edit war" for me consists of a total of two edits. Edit war for Ubikwit required 17 edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More evidence of partisan bias on Wikipedia? If there was an edit war occurring, why only ban one party, and not all parties involved if banning is punishment of edit warring. If there are only two reverts in a 24 hour period as Collect states, but 17 reverts by Ubikwit as Collect states, why only ban Collect? Granted I am only seeing one side here, but something doesn't look right.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How I ended up at PNAC

Just about eighty years ago, a nation decided that anyone with even a single Jewish grandparent was officially "Jewish."

Wikipedia has WP:BLPCAT saying we will not follow suit.

I found an editor was, alas, doing what we say we will not do. Labelling people as Jewish because of their parents and grandparents.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217[ shows such a case where I did not "drop the stick" - (OK, I've restored the infobox category of religious affiliation per this consensus, and added some text to the article. Please check it out, Joe Klein) I was outlasted - the editor gave up on saying Klein was of Jewish religion - but stuck out for "Jewish ethnicity".

The exact same issue arose for Sam Harris (author). Here that editor used: Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state to label a well-known atheist as Jewish. " I think that the quote by Sayeed is not tantamount to Wikipedia categorizing Harris, and it is mentioned in the article that Harris' mother is Jewish, etc" and so on at great length.

Robert Kagan [31] showing the editor iterating the labelling of a person as "Jewish".

Neoconservatism [32] added a section onDual loyalty. [33] "What make neocons most dangerous are not their...calling everyone and his cousin an anti-Semite, but the leftist revolutionary fury they express. and questioning how anyone could mistake them for conservatives." (sourced to the ever RS "lewrockwell.com) [34] "Critics from both the left and right have assailed neoconservatives for the role Israel plays in their policies on the Middle East." show tyoical edits to that article implicitly and explicitly linking "neocons" to Israel and Jews. "Your implied suggestion that the biggest controversy in the history of neoconservatism, that is, the question of "dual loyalty" of Jewish neoconservatives", not be covered on Wikipedia is somewhat incomprehensible, and contravenes Wikipedia content policies." was a reply to me on the article talk page. "Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!.I'm not impressed. You may not disparage the publication of an academic by a world-class academic press without good reason. And yet, you have provided none. You attack her assertion of "well-known", but there are numerous sources that discuss Frederick (not to mention Robert) Kagan in relation to the topic of neoconservatism, and they are likely to increase." to another editor who disagreed with him.

I have not been involved in "Jewish articles" but I note the editor has often and with great vigour engaged on the topic of "Jewishness" in a great many venues. [35] has " The overall question of Palestinians in the Palestinians territories would seem to be much more difficult, and perhaps intractable at present, but it seems clear that there is no basis in modern history to include Jews, let alone the anachronistic "Israelites" on the list

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ubikwit is pretty clear with comments such as: [36] "in reference to my discussing Zionism as proxy colonization, and then check pages 48-49 of the above-cited reference. There are sentences in which Zionist colonization is described in no uncertain terms, and that i a valid academic source. One sentence states, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".,

I believe WP:BLPCAT applies with full force for any use of material asserting that "part Jews" or "Mischlings" are "Jewish" for categorization or description, and shall not waver on that firm belief.

Those who demur are certainly not "anti-Semitic" in any way whatsoever, but they do not seem to understand the reasoning behind BLPCAT and the necessity for BLPCAT. But that does not mean I accept the premise that we should promote any belief that Jews have "dual loyalty" issues in the United States and that anyone who has even one Jewish grandparent is automatically "Jewish." Collect (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: The implicit accusations that PNAC sought biological weapons to commit genocide is going away. As are most of the "9/11 Truther" claims -- finally. Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dissent (or agreement if you find my extremism here a reasonable stance) below please:

Collect, first I agree that categorizing someone as Jewish unless 1 - they have so self identified or 2 - Their religion/ethnicity has been a major issue in multiple highly reliable sources is completely inappropriate. Pigeonholing people based solely on 'blood' is very near to evil. Extremism is never a reasonable stance unless facing an existential threat. If you ever think something on Wikipedia can be classified as such it is time to quit.

While we have only recently interacted I have read many of your BLPN threads over a few years and I have come to respect you for taking principled stands. That said, often I find your arguments, particularly about BLP, pedantic and non-constructive. I am by no means saying you are the only one who makes such arguments. BLP does not require us to censor encyclopedic content.

Finally you went Godwin up there. Really!?!?... In all seriousness though you need to reword and strike a lot of the above text because you have effectively called Ubikwit an anti-Semite and compared him to a Nazi. Considering all of your worry about implying connections/guilt in articles this is ironic. No matter what your disagreement with him is such implications are completely inappropriate here and reflect quite badly on you. I am not agreeing with his edits, I have not read them. I am just saying whatever they are your implications are inappropriate.

You asked for input and I gave you mine. I hope we are able to work together in the future. I am sure we will often disagree but we seem to have common interests and I always respect, if not agree with, what you have to say. JBH (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The bit about declaring anyone who has any Jewish blood was, in fact, the argument made by the person adding that category to multiple persons. Ubikwit is not an "anti-Semite" at all, and I have never called him one. What I do note is that he apparently found the arguments about "neocons" and "dual loyalty" to be a tad more convincing than I found them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, good to know no accusation was intended. I agree the duel loyalty issue is not something for Wikipedia until a lot of people in RS start writing about it. My opinion is that people will start talking about loyalty to a religious group (Jewish, Muslim, Dominionist Christian, Nationalist Hindu or whatever) as reason for disloyalty to a person's normative national loyalty in either a nationalist or counter-nationalist context in the coming years. Even if that does happen it likely would not belong in the friggin PNAC article! Enjoy or night/day per your timezone. Cheers. JBH (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The other tidbits included implications that PNAC might seek genocide using biological weapons, etc. and the wondrous array of 9/11 conspiracy in the mix. Personally, I do not think editors who promote such claims are greatly needed by Wikipedia at all. Collect (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Would you prefer I wait for the RfC to close and the BLPN to archive before starting an ANI string? @Govindaharihari: gave me a "Thank" for suggesting it and nobody else has made any comments, so I think that's the right way to go. If there is a content dispute, I don't actually know what it is. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

BS claims which are counter-factual

An editor asserts "He has admitted to following me to the PNAC article" which is pure and utter bullshit. Such claims by editors which are sufficiently personal attacks" do not make me inclined to send out Wikilove messages. He adds " and he did the same on Joe Klein" which is also counterfactual. His first edit there was 5 Feb where he labelled Klein a "Jew". I pointed out that "nndb.com" is not a "reliable source" because of claims about Klein being Jewish in the Neoconservatism article - not following the editor but following the unsourced or weakly sourced claims in a BLP. I follow WP:RS/N where nndb.com has repeatedly failed. Nothing to do with the accusations made about me.

[37] shows one of the Neocon edits:

Of these, many were from the Jewish intellectual milieu of New York City.

If that is not specifically trying to link a group as "Jewish" I do not know what would qualify.

The claim that an editor "improves" articles in such a manner, I find risible.

First edit on Harris[38] was:

His writings on atheism have been criticized in various publications, with the criticisms including accusations of Islamophobia and racism.

Most people understand that including asides about a person being accused of racism and Islamophobia are "contentious claims". The editor then removed "philosopher and neuroscientist" only to have to give in as a result of Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC:Should_Sam_Harris_be_called_a_philosopher where that sort of claim had been dealt with. Note that I was in that article long before the other editor appeared there. And comments like thinking "But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is" is a reasonable basis for editing any BLP do not assure me that an editor is seeking to even abide by WP:NPOV much less "improve" articles. So I proposed an RfC Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC where the apparent consensus again is not in accord with the "improvements."

A third editor pointed out (lest anyone think this is animus on my part)

Repeat all you want; Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner.

In short I regard the claims made against me that I somehow picked out any editor to chase to be silly, inane, and unworthy of being bandied. But when an editor cites his rejected BLP violations as "improvements" - that goes a mile too far. Collect (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

References

US

RightCowLeftCoast I am off-line for a bit - but kindly note that my wording as last presented does not anme any of the territories - thus no need for "Commonwealth" of anything.

The United States .... is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction of fifty states, a federal district, five major territories and several uninhabited islands. The republic has a President elected within the fifty states and a federal district, frequently called the United States by itself.

Is quite fine. Collect (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The last clause in that sentence is very awkward. It makes it sound like DC is often called the United States. I am not sure what it is trying to say. JBH (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I.e. The republic has a President elected within the fifty states and a federal district, frequently called the United States by itself could be instead:

The president of the United States is elected by an electoral college chosen by the fifty states and the federal district.

Would that be clear enough? or

The republic has a President elected within the fifty states and a federal district. This area is frequently called the United States by itself.

Although I had suspected most people would read the antecedent as being the full area described, and few would think a "federal district" would ever be called "States" where we have "states" in the preceding phrase <g>. Collect (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahh... I see what you were saying. You were differentiating the States+DC from all of the States+DC+territories. Correct? Either of the alternates read better. The problem in the first sentence was the singular 'itself' which would refer back to the last singular noun. It was likely clearer in context but was enough to make me go eh?? when read in isolation. JBH (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

That works. However, I don't think that the last sentence needs to be in the lead, that can be in the Government section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that this is precisely where the arguments centered -- "what is the United States?" where some insisted on the broader and some on the narrower construction. The aim is to cover both views as concisely and accurately as possible. Collect (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the worst fishing expeditions I have ever seen - whoever thought of this is a good candidate for the Baker Act. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing personal Collect, I just though it was too much of a coincidence that an account would come out of such a long retirement and jump right into the PNAC article, making many of the same edits and voicing many of the same concerns that you had. I'll happily apologize and retract the allegation if the SPI folk find the accusation unworthy of investigation, or if it turns up nothing.

I see what you said about being unable to post on the SPI page - I linked your response here for you. Cheers.Fyddlestix (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have a very long online history dating back over thirty years, I find your accusation to be reprehensible. I also note that usually someone posts the response on the SPI page - as a common courtesy. I also suggest you read Joe job as being themost likely cause of the "DearMe" editor (I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Vertrag, but the DearMe one seems intent on making bad edits. I would also state here that assuming bad faith of editors is a sure way to have others assume bad faith for you. :( . Collect (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is this DearMe and which are the bad edits? Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[39] was, frankly, a totally improper edit. [40] appeared properly sourced - and I would not properly sourced criticism removed from any article as it goes against WP:NPOV, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=prev&oldid=649875584] is silly as the opic of "neoconservatism" is a part of this article, and so on. I find some of your edits to be a tad violative of Wikipedia policy as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[41] was a righteous edit, which removed a link from a quote, since WP doesn't do that. Perhaps you "totally" object to it also having moved the "neocon" section lower (because the term was not explained)? The second edit removed an advocacy source, which is unreliable, since there are no shortages of academic rses on the topic; the removal was partly because of the or topic sentence. The third on the neocon cat was because the term is not glossed or used. We don't add cats for every topic in every sentence in the article. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, just to confirm - you want me to copy-paste your response below onto the SPI page for you? Happy to do so just not 100% sure that's what you're asking. This is only the third SPI report I've ever filed so sorry for not knowing what is/is not commonly done in this situation.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, next time I'll know, thanks.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to Sock accusation:

As I am unable to post on the SPI page, will someone post this? I find the accusation risible, inane, and a wondrous example of WP:ABF.

My actual name and address are known to Jimbo, and about a dozen or more admins. I have used this handle now for over thirty years, and have never "socked" at all -- this accusation is apparently about as ill-faith as I can conceive of, and timed so that I cannot respond. I would have no rational reason to sock, but accusations of this type are so routinely made now sans any actual evidence that I suggest SPI enforce the rule requiring some actual evidence of some sort, beyond "someone came into the article, and even though their edits are, in fact, contrary to the edits of the editor I wish to accuse, this is a good way to annoy the hell out of them." 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done (and I fixed your sig in the copied version. Let me know if that's not what you wanted). Did you want to first line copied as well? Guettarda (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Cowsills "evidence" - the edits were absolutely and totally unrelated to each other -- anyone saying I would use a sock for such edits is NCM.

Re: An accusation that I used a sock in order to force Ubikwit to edit war - that is a remarkably obtuse and ill-founded charge - noting that I suggested that Ubikwit self-revert.

Re: We both used BLP/N -- I have about four hundred edits on that noticeboard. Odds are pretty high that anyone posting there will show some sort of overlap. And the overlap? I saw Vertrag's post about a Cowsill! That is the one and only BLP/N thread we have an overlap on at all. Period.

Please someone - put the horrid SPI complaint out of its misery? Collect (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreserved Apology for SPI Report

Hi Collect, since the SPI folk apparently have evidence that the people I though were sock(s) are not you, and as promised, I am posting an unreserved apology for the SPI report - mea culpa. I humbly retract any and all accusations I made against you. Feel free to post a stern lecture or shame me on my talk page, whatever you put there I'll leave up to remind me not to jump conclusions in the future.

I know it must look like I was just throwing out a wild accusation because of personal bias. I hope that some part of you can understand that a reasonable person might find it suspicious when two different accounts that have gone through very long dormant periods start to edit an article that has recently been involved in an edit war, and that they might look to the people who had been involved in that conflict as possible culprits. I confess I've fancied myself a bit of a sockhunter in my time on wikipedia so far (In the ~2 months that I've actually been active here, I've reported two, both of which were actually cases of sockpuppetry). I was a tiny bit please with myself about those, and have been keeping my eye open for possible puppetry. Perhaps too open. I was over-zealous, and I apologize for besmirching your rep.

One last thing I'll say in my defense: you seem to have quite the reputation and quite a lot of friends here. But as someone who has only been active on wikipedia for a short time, I regret that I haven't had the privilege of interacting with you much, and that my introduction to you was the conflict on the PNAC page. I hope that if/when our paths cross again, you won't hold this (too much) against me - I will certainly try to be respectful and obviously avoid making any other undue accusations! Fyddlestix (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

TY -- and I note that several folks were involved in making inferences of socking on several pages on the project as well (sigh). I trust you will avoid making such a splash in the future, to be sure. At least the PNAC article has been rid of the worst SYNTH last I looked. By the way, I have no "enemies list" and shall not have one. Collect (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I note an editor asserted: Where there are a range of different views on a topic, all of them are supposed to be reflected in the article in accordance with their respective prominence in the sources . The problem is that conspiracy theories are considered WP:FRINGE per se. Giving any undue weight to them is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is not "prominence" which counts - it is whether a theory is considered fringe by the mainstream scholars on the topic. U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks does not include Meacher at all. Nor does United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001. September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories#Intelligence_warnings does explicitly cite Meacher's theories. Note Meacher is a leader in the 9/11 Truth movement "Fringe" without any doubt. In short - no reason under Wikipedia policy to give "equal time" in any way to the vocal conspiracy mongers. In short Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). And Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. When we legitimize conspiracy theories by using SYNTH lists of "they all were Masons", "they all were Jewish ethnicity", "they all were Russians", "they all were (fill in the blank)" or anything of that sort, we violate Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with this is the use of "fringe" becomes more and more a thought-terminating cliché used by totalitarian societies to prevent questioning official government narratives that may not be true. And if you are familiar with the 9/11 literature, then you know that many mainstream sources question the official narrative without resorting to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or any other errors in thinking. Our article on the criticism of the 9/11 Commission touches upon some of these ideas. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I assure you that I am far from a supporter of totalitarianism. The Meacher case, alas, fulfills the essence of "fringe". Are you, moreover, suggesting that the US is specifically such a "totalitarian society?" If so, I demur on such a counterfactual view of the US sphere. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the US a totalitarian society using Wolin's theory of "inverted totalitarianism"? Or is that theory WP:FRINGE?

Collect, please read inverted totalitarianism. Be seeing you... Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And reading a fringe view rarely convinces me of the correctness of the fringe view. I would, moroever, suggest you read and abide by the suggestions in WP:PIECE which apparently a few editors do not think is reasonable, sad to relate. I especially find any statement that the US is becoming a clone of Nazi Germany to be abhorrent, and indicative of major problems in the word view of those holding such a point of view, and even more a problem when editors promote that world view as thought it were fact on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're using the term "fringe" as a thought-terminating cliché, not in the context of its original usage. There is nothing, I repeat again in case you didn't read it the first time -- there is nothing in our article on the concept of inverted totalitarianism that can be described as "fringe" in any way shape or form. This is, in fact, leigitimate, mainstream scholarship, and if you think differently, I challenge you to prove otherwise. You really must stop misusing the language this way because it looks like POV pushing. Your misuse of the term "fringe" appears to be a way for you to silence dissent and criticism. The scholarship behind the concept of inverted totalitarianism is sound. The direction the United States (and other countries) have taken over the last fifty years has been questioned by legitimate writers and academics, and you cannot silence them by using the word "fringe" in this way. Sheldon Wolin is not a "fringe" author, nor are the many academics who support his work. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Questia doe not find Wolin widely accepted. 2 reviews in journals only. One site which does push him is the notorious "globalresearch.ca" fringe theory site (see WP:RS/N for a bunch of discussions about that!) And of course AlterNet, which even manages to accuse G. W. Bush of instituting a Nazi totalitarian regime in the US, and says that technology is to blame for this new totalitarianism. Sorry - WP:FRINGE applies. Michel Chossudovsky has very colourful views to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no comment on his theory, however, there are 89 results in JSTOR which discuss Wolin. So he is certainly a mainstream scholar. Jbh (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

How many of them are about this "theory" of "inverted totalitarianism"? How many mention him and not the theory? I found none using the term other than those ascribed to him. The issue is not of "lots of people mention him because of a number of his books" but "how many adopt this theory" and that, I would note, is minimal. As in "essentially none." Collect (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see:

• The Nation (you're not going to argue they're FRINGE, are you?) printed an article by Wolin about his theory.
• His book is published by Princeton Uni Press (Peer Reviewed, one of the most prestigious academic presses in the country).
• The book was reviewed by other academics in journals like European Political Science, Political Science Quarterly, Perspective on Politics, International Affairs, and others. Those are direct links to the review - note none of them characterize him as a nutbar, and several of them are very positive.
• His book won the Lannan Award in 2008.

Sorry Collect but there's no way in hell you can spin this as FRINGE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 21 articles indexed in JSTOR mentioning "inverted totalitarianism" (not including Front/Back Matter results). Again. no comment on the theory but it is being talked about by main stream academics. If you are interested in any of the articles for an article here I will be happy to provide it. Jbh (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I went through your list of reviews - not a single one endorsed the book, and one was aghast at the Nazi imagery used at the start of this book. Find scholars using the theory and supporting the theory - not reviewers who seem puzzled by the rather partisan material: Yet, Wolin's interpretation of the transformation seems to depict a rather exaggerated vision of the ‘poor state’ of democracy when contending that the actual direction of contemporary American politics is the very opposite of what the political leadership, the mass media and think tank oracles claim that it is the world's foremost exemplar of democracy.,

Wolin: "What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The question for citizens is: Which way?" appears to be an election screed at best.

Wolin reminds us that the image of Adolf Hitler flying to Nuremberg in 1934 that opens Leni Riefenstahl's classic film "Triumph of the Will" was repeated on May 1, 2003, with President George Bush's apparent landing of a Navy warplane on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. sounds not quite neutral in political tone nor imagery. ."

Globalresearch.ca has been mentioned at WP:RS/Nand generally in a quite unfavourable light.

Wolin: The Republicans have emerged as a unique phenomenon in American history of a fervently doctrinal party, zealous, ruthless, antidemocratic and boasting a near majority. As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant, the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology. In ceasing to be a genuine opposition party the Democrats have smoothed the road to power of a party more than eager to use it to promote empire abroad and corporate power at home. Bear in mind that a ruthless, ideologically driven party with a mass base was a crucial element in all of the twentieth-century regimes seeking total power.

In short - a partisan screed, not adopted by mainstream academics.

BTW, "prize winning" applies to many books found to be wrong, plagiarized, embarrassing, and hoaxes. (Goodwin, Haley and others even had Pulitzers). In scholarly areas, what counts is acceptance by other mainstream scholars - and that has not been shown here. You need peer-reviewed articles showing acceptance of the "theory" and that is how scholars work. Collect (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You're cherry picking quotes:

• The first review you quote also calls his book "persuasive," and suggests that "Wolin has written the most empirically updated, theoretically informed and generally persuasive analysis on the transformation of the US politics away from self-government, rule of law, egalitarianism and thoughtful public discussion. Democracy Incorporated mounts to a courageous and powerful critique of the path towards which American politics might be leaning." It's pretty normal for academic book reviews to point out both the flaws and the strengths of the work; they're not supposed to "endorse" anything, and being "endorsed" in book reviews (if that was even a thing) is hardly a reasonable standard for being considered "mainstream."
• You might see the second quote as "election screed," but how is that equivalent to being FRINGE? People get partisan around election time, that doesn't make them nutbars.
• The review that you picked the quote about Reifenstahl out of concludes that the book is "quite an achievement," if "also misleading about the transformative potentials of our world." It's a mixed review.
• I didn't mention (or link) anything from Global Research (and never would) so not sure why you're bringing that up.
• You conveniently left out the review from International Affairs, which notes that "proper reading of the book will make it clear that Wolin is far from implying a moral or even political equivalence these regimes and the US."

Completely setting apart the actual merits of the book (I haven't read it), you're setting the an impossibly high standard for considering something "mainstream," and a ridiculously low bar for dismissing something as FRINGE. It doesn't matter whether the book reviews are positive or negative, the point is that it was deemed worthy of serious consideration and review by multiple legitimate academics and journals. That it was deemed worthy of publication by PU Press. Truly FRINGE scholars, books, and ideas do not get that kind of attention and that treatment.

If you are only going to accept something as "mainstream" if academics "adopt" them then you're going to be waiting a long time, because it's not academics job to "adopt" a singular view. If anything, their job is to disagree about stuff. So the fact that some reviewers criticized Wolin does not mean that they think he’s unworthy of reading, unworthy of attention, or a crackpot.

Honestly, it kind of worries me that you don’t seem to see that the distinction between “right” and “wrong” (in the sense of “I agree” vs “I don’t agree”) is completely different from the distinction between “mainstream” and “fringe.” Reasonable, rational, non-crank people hold a wide range of views. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

GlobalResearch is indeed a publisher of the Chalmers Johnson review - which you appear to cite. Second, there is no sign that the "theory" has any actual acceptance or endorsement from mainstream academics. Third, "mixed reviews" specifically do not in any way imply acceptance of a theory, as noted below. Fourth, when an article is overtly partisan to an extreme extent, it is reasonable to call it a "screed". Especially when Hitler gets involved. Fifth, read the discussion below. Unless and until one can show some significant adoption or acceptance of such a throey, it is not "mainstream" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never linked you or cited the Chalmer's Johnson review - I may be mistaken, but it looks to me like you're the one that brought that up. More to the point; are you aware that an academic can't control who is reading their book or who reviews it, and that reviewing a book does not mean that the author supports your position?

As far as "acceptance," I'll repeat what I said before; in academia, no one view is ever "accepted" - getting "accepted" in academia is having your book published by a reputable press, having a professorship at a reputable university, and having your book reviewed in reputable journals. All of these are things that Wolin has done. That's all an academic needs to do to be regarded as a mainstream, reputable thinker whose ideas are worth considering. Period. The "acceptance" that you keep holding up as something that Wolin lacks isn't something that exists in academia - scholars don't keep lists of "cannon" books anymore and they haven't done so for many many decades now. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Being "reviewed" especially when the reviews are mixed to put it charitably, does not make the thesis "mainstream." That you say that "mainstream" as a concept is now non-existent in academia sounds like a position you should raise at WP:FRINGE and assert there. I think the idea that "a person got this published by a major press, therefore his positions are mainstream" is interesting, but not the position taken in Wikipedia policy. Until that content guideline is changed and WP:NPOV is amended, Wikipedia follows what they say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, again: I didn't say that academia doesn't have a concept of mainstream. Of course it does. My point was that the higher standard of "acceptance" which you keep suggesting is something Wolin lacks doesn't exist - at least not as the boundary between fringe and non-fringe. Academia's main gatekeeper against "fringe" people and ideas is the process of peer review. Wolin's book was peer reviewed and published by a reputable press that would never publish truly "fringe" ideas. It is not fringe. If we only regarded works that were widely cited, or "adopted," or "accepted" - neither of which is really a "thing" in academia - then the list of "mainstream" books would be exceedingly small, and you'd be consigning huge numbers of scholars whose work is perfectly fine, but just never got much attention for whatever reason, to the "fringe" dustbin. That's not how it works. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the three most promising cites from JSTOR (I skip the ones which want money from me):

Bell in Human Rights basically uses it as a plea for the election of Obama.

Giroux mentions Wolin briefly, and then goes on to rant about "zombie fascism" where the academics have been basically emasculated by the anonymous corporatism of the US and "far right thugs" etc. Do you consider this a strong academic source backing Wolin?

Brown equates neoliberalism and neoconservatism as each being de-democratizing positions - rather than aiming at Wolin's "totalitarianism", Davis says the two groups seem to cooperate in reducing the "rule of law" in favour of ad hoc agreements on some issues, that the apolitical neoliberals are inadvertently setting the stage for neoconservative authoritarianism based on "morality" (Davis does not seem to follow Wolin's path to Nazi analogues at all).

Strangely, Brown spends a lot of space on "Christianity", and seems to basically follow Harris' view of the value or lack thereof - saying the Christians on the right see government as a pastor to the populace, levelling her sights at that issue - rather than following Wolin's anger at "technology." In fact she only cites Wolin in fn 38 which is a discourse about some referring to US interventionism as "fascism" where she specifies she is concerned about the "faceless social and cultural forces" at work in current society. So she does not adopt Wolin for sure. She does imply that there is no "substantive left vision" which seems totally at odds with Wolin's views. Zero for three - and that is all I get at a time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like you found the articles I was going to note below. You can discount the why's and wherefores as much as you want but why these people cite the theory makes no difference just that they do. First please allow me to direct you to direct you to two comments made about Wolin. He is obviously not a fringe thinker. Pretty much anything he has to say is going to be of interest to academics. They may disagree with him but it is part of the discourse.

"Sheldon S. Wolin is perhaps the preeminent U.S. political theorist, and the publication of Tocqueville Between Two Worlds, a Festschrift, and an expanded edition of Politics and Vision provided the impetus for this article, which assesses Wolin's political theory to date."

"When it first appeared in 1960, Politics and Vision had an extraordinarily important impact on the development of political philosophy in the United States."

Now here are some articles which discuss or cite his idea of 'inverted totalitarianism'.I am sure a deeper examination will show more and I am sure that 'inverted totalitarianism' is controversial. I can see no way he or this particular theory can be considered FRINGE. PS ref [3] above might be of interest on some of the Neoconservative articles.

Jbh (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope -- when folks mention a theory and say it makes no sense, that does not count as supporting the theory. The NYT reported the WTC conspiracy theories - that does not make those theories "not fringe." "Fringe" is determined by whether the mainstream scholars in the field support the theory. In the case at hand, after reading quite a few pages, I can safely say that the mainstream scholars do not support it. See WP:FRINGE -- it does not mean "wrong" - it does mean "the mainstream scholars do not support it". Collect (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see the limitation of the use of 'inverted totalitarianism' as a theory requiring equal time, though I do not believe anyone was talking about that.Then I saw GScholar shows 346 cites [42] to A Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism - Nope not FRINGE not FRINGE at all I firmly object to classifying Woldin alongside Meacher. One is a complete nutbar while the other is an highly respected political theorist with a decades long track record. I guess we can agree to disagree however I do enjoy learning about new stuff like this and I do enjoy the debate. Cheers.Jbh (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Any "googlecount" requires inspection - many instances are from laundry list bibliographies, and are not indications of the author agreeing with a theory. " This thesis will argue that Sheldon Wolin’s theory of democracy is conceptually similar to anarchist theory" is from a Master's thesis, etc. Another example simply quotes Wolin - and nothing of meaning otherwise. One at [43] has this really useful precis:

"John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo are two of the main thinkers in continental philosophy’s return to religion. This return is accommodated by the basic theoretical framework of irony, which is predominantly an unspoken determinant upon textual meaning. In this continental sense, irony affirms and negates the subject matter that it speaks about. Adopting this framework, Caputo and Vattimo suggest that a new Christian-irony is desirable to avert a collapse back into the violence that results from metaphysics, either modern or classical, by remaining in deconstruction’s loosely held wavering between theism and atheism. The question that remains to be proven, however, is whether their ironic method of writing is not inadvertently continuing the negative effect of the Nietzschean-Heideggerian paradigm by persisting with the literary style of writing that is intrinsic to it, even while openly refuting it by their affirmative Judeo-Christian surface content."

I do not have the foggiest idea what that means, but it has nothing to do with Wolin <g>. Again -- find actual major mainstream scholars - googlecounts are not all that great here. Collect (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You know that the page you linked has a direct link to the thesis itself, right? Check out page 13-14 - not only is Wolin discussed in depth, but there's a mega block-quote from him. Not only is this thesis citing Wolin, it's using Wolin as part of its theoretical premise/foundation. It seems unlikely that someone would get awarded an MA for giving that much attention (in their introduction, no less) to a "Fringe" scholar. If anything, it speaks to his academic legitimacy. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! That looks like it was written by the bot I hope it is a bot! that does Time Cube.

Yes, I agree that not all citations are equal but just as well we need to avoid a No true scholar Defining a good cite. issue. All I have access to is Google Scholar and I would be interested in what the commercial services have to say about that book's citations. My opinion remains, once something is solidly in the academic discourse, not being solidly derided, it is no longer FRINGE. It might be minor, contested, or even total crap. I would say it is analogous to notability per WP:PROF. There is no need to explore the quality of cites there and determining cite quality can get sticky Although if a large percentage on the cites are like the one you quote.... damn, I thought I was having a stroke as all meaning dripped from my mind while I read that. <g> Jbh (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

IOW, we need something which is remotely understandable agreeing with the guy to say his opinion is remotely near the mainstream. The usual technique is to find people using the term on their own. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe these might address your concerns. Per "... find people using the term on their own" we have.

Mentan, T. (2013). Democracy for Breakfast. Unveiling Mirage Democracy in Contemporary Africa. African Books Collective. p.ix [44]

Who devotes a couple of pages of his introduction to discussing 'inverted totalitarianism'. It has its own section. From Questia we have

• Blessed Are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America by Jeffrey Stout p.323 which favorable compares the theory to the authors own work.

125. As Molly Farneth has reminded me, chapter 13 of Wolin’s more recent book, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), appears to adopt a position somewhat closer to the one I am defending. On page 291, he refers to the need “to encourage and nurture a counterelite of democratic public servants” and argues that this counterelite can already be found to a large extent in “numerous nongovernmental organizations.” In effect, I am extending this thought, but at the expense of the “fugitive” democrat’s distaste for hierarchy as such.

There is also this review on Questia which seems pretty positive.

• Archer, Jeff Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism

I believe these fulfill the criteria you earlier mentioned. I found several others on Questia who cite the book and/or term in their work as well but I stopped chasing them down after these three. I simply do not see how Wolin or 'Inverted Totalitarianism' can be considered fringe considering the current weight of evidence. Jbh (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Frist - Archer is a review, and I previously noted it. It is not an endorsement at all of the "theory."

Stout in a footnote says "On page 291, he refers to the need “to encourage and nurture a counterelite of democratic public servants” and argues that this counterelite can already be found to a large extent in “numerous nongovernmental organizations.” In effect, I am extending this thought, but at the expense of the “fugitive” democrat’s distaste for hierarchy as such." Which is not a claim of any sort of support for the theory at all ... indeed, it has nothing to do with "inverted totalitarianism" per se.

Leaving the book from "Langaa Research and Publishing Common Initiative Group" which appears to primarily focus on books about Cameroon. It might have a minor problem in that it asserts that (Capitalism) "in an inherently unequal system" and thus Capitalism and Democracy are fundamentally incompatible. The preface dwells extensively on this particular premise - and that "elections" in such a nation are inherently undemocratic. While this is an interesting thesis, it appears based on an African view of elections not widely held otherwise. It is, however, using Wolin's words without using his stated theory. The preface then decries Western coverage of African elections and economies. It also says neololiberalism is the defacto position of capitalism, and that its agenda is to "create globalized states in Africa." This also has nothing actually to do with Wolin's theory either. And the position that "western democracy" is not what Africa needs is a clear position as well. If you wish to use this book, what it supports is not what Wolin states, and what this book supports is a strange version of "democracy" peculiar to Africa, and not "Western democracy" as a system.

Thus one should read more than just the Roman numeral pages ... even reading just the first chapter of the book shows its use of terminology is aimed primarily at opposing free markets, opposing limiting government spending where large populations are poor, railing at France for not supporting the CFAs and their economies rather than keeping a stable Euro, and for keeping a limit on national overdrafts of those currencies (two different CFAs). And also blaming every UN agency in sight for abetting the devaluation of the currencies. Wolin is not within a mile of this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

D'accord. Last I checked, Stout and Dorrien were in theology schools, Henry Giroux at an ed school at Miami U of Ohio, etc. Somebody was cite writing about postmodernism and cultural theory. These are not presidential addresses published in the American Journal of Political Science or even featured reviews in Foreign Policy. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Vous parlez francais? (no cedilla on this keyboard) And I only met Nimoy once, and Shatner several times ... LLAP. Collect (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we have reached the No true scholar point I earlier feared. It makes no difference how a theory is used. It is addressed and used within the context of academic discourse, it is not ignored or disparaged. You are setting an a very high bar for what you consider mainstream. You finally pin yourself down to something you will accept with "...we need something which is remotely understandable agreeing with the guy to say his opinion is remotely near the mainstream. The usual technique is to find people using the term on their own." These are produced yet you say not good enough because they do not really address his theory. You wanted someone who was using the term on their own.

A concept must be firmly in main stream scholarship before people start adapting a theory for their own use. Good social scientists do not regurgitate a theory and apply it by rote. They modify it to the conditions they are examining. Theories in the social sciences provide a paradigm for analysis not a rote way of figuring something out, except possibly for an undergrad.

Just as an example were I to use Inverted totalitarianism Just heard about it this PM to examine the socio-political tradjectory of the US over the next 5 years I would also be drawing on Social practice theory, Power cycle theory, no article???Keynesian Theory, Marxism bleh, yuck but useful for some social dynamics, Realist IR Theory, Geopolitics and dollups of many other people's work. Mainly because I would need to re-frame Wolin's theory in terms of anthropology and international relations In all that Wolin would get a couple footnotes for his stuff but you would hardly recognize how I used him after I ran his concepts through all of the theoretical frameworks I use in my analysis. But his theory would have contributed significantly to the analysis. Whatever I came up with... that would be FRINGE. <g>

The point is there is no need, and no expectation, that when people are influenced by a writing or a theory for them to restate or slavishly apply the theory. It has helped them frame their analysis. If the theory were not used for framing or for the analytical it provides the end result would be different. That is what it means for a social science to be in the mainstream and that is what those 350+ cites I mentioned earlier indicate. Possibly you would give a firm definition of what kind of evidence you are looking for?

PS please do not mistake my frustration for anger. I have very much enjoyed our conversation although we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns. You do seem to be in the middle of interesting discussions though. Cheers.Jbh (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The Africa book you cite, however, neither uses the theory within the book, nor uses the term in the preface in a manner remotely consistent with how Wolin presented the term. It is, alas, an example of people using the term in buzzwordese, which is all too common when people are presenting controversial claims (like "western democracy can not work in Africa because African democracy has to be different entirely" or the like.) As Arthur notes below - reviews do not mean the reviewer is adopting the theory, nor is the claim "well the author was mainstream, therefore his new theory must be mainstream" hold water. Chomsky has some mainstream linguistic theories, but that does not make his later writings "mainstream" at all. Pauling got a Nobel in Chemistry, but that does not make his medical theories "mainstream." As for iterating links to "no true scotsman" - the first time may be fun. Iterations show a lack of new arguments. Collect (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That a person or his views are discussed in mainstream scholarship does not make those views mainstream. I haven't (recently) looked at those specific views, but no legitimate case has yet been presented here that Wolin is NOT fringe.(Arthur Rubin)

@Arthur Rubin: Really?? Just what would you consider a "legitimate case"? Please, I am very curious. Jbh (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So far, other than the one rather strange Africa book, you have not presented anyone actually making arguments in support of the new theory. Find substantive uses where the scholars state that their findings agree with Wolin's theory. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can tell, no examples have been provided for the theory being mentioned favorably, other than by Wolin, himself; there are a few tangential mentions or mentions using it to support something completely different; and one or two unfavorable mentions. If that is correct, it looks fringe. If there weren't any of the last category, then the theory would just be non-notable, at least in detail; it would be possible that the existence of the theory might be notable, if non-academic sources exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Arthur and Collect, you are both acting silly and unreasonable. We don't have to prove that Wolin is not fringe, that would be like asking you to prove you aren't paid by the Koch brothers. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If you believe Wolin is fringe, then use the guideline to prove it. Since neither of you can, the default position is that he's not fringe. Arguing otherwise is shifting the burden. You and Collect know this but you do it anyway. In any case, Wolin's central thesis, that economic influence has weakened democracy in the US, is far from controversial or disputed. This is a mainstream idea accepted by most scholars as legitimate and factual. Pretending otherwise is disturbing. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We each aver that he is likely WP:FRINGE after doing our "due diligence." I have given full cites for what I found and what I did not find. And I suggest that "John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo are two of the main thinkers in continental philosophy’s return to religion. This return is accommodated by the basic theoretical framework of irony, which is predominantly an unspoken determinant upon textual meaning. In this continental sense, irony affirms and negates the subject matter that it speaks about. Adopting this framework, Caputo and Vattimo suggest that a new Christian-irony is desirable to avert a collapse back into the violence that results from metaphysics, either modern or classical, by remaining in deconstruction’s loosely held wavering between theism and atheism. The question that remains to be proven, however, is whether their ironic method of writing is not inadvertently continuing the negative effect of the Nietzschean-Heideggerian paradigm by persisting with the literary style of writing that is intrinsic to it, even while openly refuting it by their affirmative Judeo-Christian surface content" is either meaningless or as close thereto as any logician might desire. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you appear very confused. What you have cited is a student thesis, in particular, a quote that has nothing to do with Wolin. Now that I've corrected your mistake, I sincerely hope you will for once attempt to demonstrate that Wolin is "fringe" by citing a specific passage from the fringe guideline. You cannot do this because Wolin isn't fringe. What I've demonstrated is that you repeatedly misuse the fringe guideline to attack sources and content you personally disagree with, even when you haven't reviewed the source material! Could you please stop doing this? I brought up Wolin as one example of many. Surely you can find at least one reliable source that casts Wolin as a fringe thinker? That you cannot speaks volumes. Your misuse of the fringe guideline is an attempt to frame any criticism or dissent of official narratives as "subversion". This is a propaganda technique common to totalitarian societies. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are more likely confused from me iterating one of the JSTOR "sources" found by another editor and used to assure me that the Wolin theory was widely used. And yes - this paper was one of the ones in the JSTOR search results! I unfortunately demur that such a usage proves that Wolin is widely considered to be in the mainstream with this new theory. And I consider your accusations here to verge on the ragged edge of propriety -- and ask you recant some of your seeming allegations. And your assertion that I am using propaganda like a totalitarian would is abhorrent here, as is your snark that I must be being paid to edit. I would ask you to note that accusing editors of being paid to edit is actionable, and that you should immediately strike out any such assertions or implications as being in violation of Wikipedia terms of service, policies and guidelines. Now. Collect (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, please read what I wrote again. I'll copy it here so you don't have to look:

We don't have to prove that Wolin is not fringe, that would be like asking you to prove you aren't paid by the Koch brothers. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If you believe Wolin is fringe, then use the guideline to prove it. Since neither of you can, the default position is that he's not fringe. Arguing otherwise is shifting the burden.

This is not an accusation, this is an analogy, showing the fallaciousness of such accusations by way of example, not their veracity by way of assertion. In this case, the default position is that you are not paid by the Koch brothers, nor could one reasonably assume that you are based on an absence of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wolin's sideways and upside down inverted totalitarianism nonsense is fringe primarily because those that might be the polar opposite of that notion have not bothered to rebuttal it...because its ridiculous. Much like NIST's reluctance to entertain or waste time rebutting retarded 9/11 truther stuff. Lunatic fringe theories seem to be more and more common in the university system, thanks in no small part to discriminatory hiring procedures which eliminate anyone that doesn't like drinking the same Kool-Aid as the typical university imperial goof-trooper.[45] Why Wolin chose to compare what he hates with Nazism or anything Nazi is obvious...by comparing something to what is almost universally decreed to be a reprehensible entity, it gives the thing they hate equal footing and helps provide distaste. These tenured professors are so amusing what with their cushy tenured jobs that they will never lose until someone uncovers them for plagiarism or willingly accepts their resignation after they are investigated for crackpot theories, or they simply murder and attempt to murder other members of their university after being denied tenure.--MONGO 07:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As I already said above, Wolin's central thesis, that economic influence has weakened democracy in the US, is not fringe, it's mainstream discourse. I would encourage you to find something he said or wrote and a reliable source that casts him as fringe to support your argument. I have a question for MONGO and anyone else: using the fringe guideline, is Jim Inhofe a fringe source on climate change, and is Wolin a fringe source on political science? Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not mainstream discourse that the U.S. political landscape is in anyway similar to Nazi Germany 1933-1945....anyone that postulates that sort of claim is simply nuts.--MONGO 10:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A nice straw man, but it's not what Wolin wrote. Here's what he actually wrote: [46][47][48][49] As for observing the historical working relationship between the US and Nazi Germany, well, that's part of the historical record.[50][51][52] You would have to be nuts to deny there wasn't a cultural exchange of ideas that influenced their culture and ours in more ways than one. Nazi eugenics? Straight outta' the US. Computerized concentration camps? Thanks, IBM. It's quite possible that inverted totalitarianism is a homegrown idea that the Nazis themselves inverted. Viriditas (talk)and atomization as an end state rather than atomization followed by hyper-politicization as was done in Germany during the rise of Nazism. 10:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

MONGO is correct - you seem to be of the opinion that the US has a great deal in common with the Nazis and their ideology - and while I would not use his term to describe you, his opinion decidedly is on the order of "that theory is WP:FRINGE". Collect (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you seem simply unable to see beyond your own preconceptions of what he is saying to understand what is actually being said. There are, arguably, analogues to Nazism and other forms of totalitarianism that can be seen in the US, not similarities there is a difference between the two terms. There seems nothing can be presented that you will accept, the bar keeps moving and as we are not discussing a particular case for inclusion here there is no way to resolve such intransigence.

I have no idea how MONGO's little screed about university professors has any bearing on the discussion. It sounds to me like the same thinking as people who say the IPCC is wrong because it was 'colder' where they live. The absolute most you all have proven is that II is a minor theory (actually it is more of a thesis than a theory from what I have read). The concept that Sheldon Wolin is himself a FRINGE is simply laughable. Once a discussion reaches the point of "Yes, Yes, Yes"..."No, No, No" it has neared and likely passed the point of usefulness. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC) PS - I just noticed the new header. Very poorly framed question. Wolin is not claiming that the US is totalitarian, he is claiming that there are analogous/inverted processes going on that weaken our democracy. He is also saying that totalitarian effects can be caused by processes other than the 'usual' centralization of government power. For instance quiescence and atomization as an end state for national politics rather than atomization followed by hyper-politicization as was done in Germany during the rise of Nazism. Jbh (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What Wolin says [53]

The old systems of governance—electoral politics, an independent judiciary, a free press and the Constitution—appear to be venerated. But, similar to what happened during the late Roman Empire, all the institutions that make democracy possible have been hollowed out and rendered impotent and ineffectual. ... The endless election cycles, he said, are an example of politics without politics, driven not by substantive issues but manufactured political personalities and opinion polls. There is no national institution in the United States “that can be described as democratic,” he [Wolin] said.

"Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate customs, mores, political values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy,” Wolin said. “That is where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. It wants a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. The [capitalist’s] notion of an economy, while broadly based in the sense of a relatively free entrance and property that is relatively widely dispersed, is as elitist as any aristocratic system.”

Resistance, Wolin and Saul agreed, will begin locally, with communities organizing to form autonomous groups that practice direct democracy outside the formal power structures, including the two main political parties. These groups will have to address issues such as food security, education, local governance, economic cooperation and consumption. And they will have to sever themselves, as much as possible, from the corporate economy.(Hedges)

 :

I asked them if a professional revolutionary class, revolutionists dedicated solely to overthrowing the corporate state, was a prerequisite. Would we have to model any credible opposition after Vladimir Lenin’s disciplined and rigidly controlled Bolsheviks or Machiavelli’s republican conspirators? Wolin and Saul, while deeply critical of Lenin’s ideology of state capitalism and state terror, agreed that creating a class devoted full time to radical change was essential to fomenting change. There must be people, they said, willing to dedicate their lives to confronting the corporate state outside traditional institutions and parties. Revolt, for a few, must become a vocation. The alliance between mass movements and a professional revolutionary class, they said, offers the best chance for an overthrow of corporate power.

In short - they all assert that the US needs an actual revolutionary overthrow of our meaningless democratic institutions which they find of no use any more. WP:FRINGE. Collect (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In short - nice straw man. No point in engaging on this. Jbh (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I take it you find the actual cite and quotes to be meaningless -- that they can not really be serious about supporting the overthrow of our meaningless vestigial democracy? If so - why did they say those precise things? Collect (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) This whole debate is crazy town. It's pretty unsettling that such active/prolific editors are this determined to label something "fringe" based on their own personal (mis)understanding (or disagreement with) the point being made, instead of actually looking at how Wolin has been treated and responded to by reliable sources & scholars. Not a single piece of evidence of Wolin's fringe-ness has been presented here, and the argument seems to be something along the lines of "well, I find his argument ridiculous, therefore it must be fringe." I'm sorry Collect, Arthur, and others, but you guys as individuals are not the ultimate arbiters of what is or isn't FRINGE, and the way that other academics, reputable journals, and other RS have responded to Wolin makes it crystal clear that he is in no way, shape, or form FRINGE. You can turn a blind eye to that fact all you want, but the actual evidence speaks for itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In short - deride the other editors here who have now read hundreds of pages on the topic - including seeking out the opinions of the scholars in the field, and use "proof by assertion" that our assiduous research is faulty, while not providing actual concrete evidence of your proof by assertion? Sorry -- something in there is a tad fallacious. MONGO is a quite literate and prolific content creator (over 60K edits). Arthur Rubin is acquainted a teeny bit with academic rigour (and 100K edits). I am the dwarf of the group with a couple good articles, a few created articles, only about 40K edits on enWiki, and over three decades online during which I have read well over 500 million words (conservative estimate as I was under contract to a major ISP) and responsible for vetting well over 100,000 images and other files. I suggest that 1500 edits is not exactly comparable to any of the three of us. Aeons ago, in fact, I read well over 4,000 pages of texts and sources on "War, Revolution and Totalitarianism." It is not a blank area for me <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

With all that research under your belt I assume you can restate Wolin's thesis in 250 words or less. Please do so. This would facilitate the identification of any misunderstanding or mis-communication on either side of this debate. A similar short statement refuting his thesis would also be useful. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What a totally worthless and inane addition to any discussion. And it is not I' refuting his position - it is multiple scholarly sources including the clear V-A source you yourself asserted means something it quite clearly does not mean. Unfortunately, when people quote stuff without any apparent comprehension but simply claim it asserts what it clearly does not assert, I fear I might be under the wrongful apprehension that the person knows how to Google-search but not to read carefully, paying precise attention to vocabulary and syntax. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I derided anyone - my point was that all of you seem to under the impression that your personal assessment of Wolin is all that's required to rule him out as FRINGE, which is obviously not the case. How many pages you've read/created, how many edits you've made, or how "literate" you are is irrelevant here - and you should know better than to try to pull some concept of "wiki seniority:" anyone can edit wikipedia, and no one editor's opinion is more valid than another's. What really matters is whether or not you can show using reliable sources that the scholar we're talking about (Wolin) is outside the mainstream. AS WP:FRINGE clearly states, "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view" - and we've linked you multiple book reviews from scholarly sources which do not reject Wolin as Fringe, multiple academics who cite and use his ideas in their work. Unless you can produce an even larger, even more extensive body of literature which rejects Wolin and labels him a crackpot, then there's nothing much else to debate here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the call for violent revolution in the US a WP:FRINGE position?

Again from the truthdig cite:

“You need a professional or elite class devoted to profound change,” Saul said. “If you want to get power you have to be able to hold it. And you have to be able to hold it long enough to change the direction. The neoconservatives understood this. They have always been Bolsheviks. They are the Bolsheviks of the right. Their methodology is the methodology of the Bolsheviks. They took over political parties by internal coups d’état. They worked out, scientifically, what things they needed to do and in what order to change the structures of power. They have done it stage by stage. And we are living the result of that. The liberals sat around writing incomprehensible laws and boring policy papers. They were unwilling to engage in the real fight that was won by a minute group of extremists.” “You have to understand power to reform things,” Saul said. “If you don’t understand power you get blown away by the guy who does. We are missing people who believe in justice and at the same time understand how tough power and politics are, how to make real choices. And these choices are often quite ugly.”

Is this a fringe view? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Again nice straw man - I like how you double down with "violent revolution. Frame the question without the hyperbole and it would be interesting to engage on. As to what you quote, think metaphor. Jbh (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And the truth is it sure does sound like violent revolution being called for - did you read Saul's position? And Wolin's? And the ideal that 'special wonderful people will be the one's to hold power after all the meaningless democratic bits are gone, and these folks will have the need to make "ugly choices"? and it does not read like a "harmless metaphor" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like to you, not said by him. As to the "special wonderful people" sounds a lot like Leo Strauss from what I recall. Jbh (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Instead of your hyberbole from Truthdig let us look at what Wolin actually has to say on the subject and how a scholar makes use of it.

"As soon as the Asia-Pacific war ended, the debate ensued as to whether Japan's political formation of the 1930s could rightly be called fascist. For the last half century, we have repeatedly returned to the futile dispute over whether that which contemporary local intellectuals analyzed and condemned under the name fascism in Japan during the 1930s was really a form of fascism, and whether Japanese fascism could qualify as such since some of its features clearly contradicted the definition of fascism in general, whose [End Page 161] authenticity is seen as derived from the history of the West. How frequently has the absence of a grassroots fascist movement in interwar Japan been mentioned as a condition that disqualifies any social or political movement from being fascist? Today, however, this is exactly the feature of the current U.S. reign that such liberal political scientists as Sheldon Wolin describe as "inverted totalitarianism." Wolin provides an illuminating analysis of present-day American society: "The crucial element that sets off inverted totalitarianism from Nazism is that while the latter imposed a regime of mobilization upon its citizenry, inverted totalitarianism works to depoliticize its citizenry, thus paying a left-handed compliment to the prior experience of democratization. Where the Nazis strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and confidence, Kraft durch Freude (or 'strength through joy'), the inverted regime promotes a sense of weakness, collective futility that culminates in the erosion of the democratic faith, in political apathy and the privatization of the self."[3] The use of the term inverted signifies that "while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the 'streets' were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive — while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government."[4] According to this definition, then, was Japanese fascism of the 1930s already inverted?" Bolding and emphisis mine. -Jbh [3Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought, expanded edition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 592. [4]Sheldon S. Wolin, "Inverted Totalitarianism," Nation, May 19, 2003, www.thenation.com/doc/20030519/wolin.

Jbh (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Or possibly this from that bastion of revolution The Johns Hopkins University Press.

In order to conclude these reflections, it might be helpful to briefly dwell on Wolin’s recent treatment of the transformation of political form in the United States; namely, on Wolin’s Democracy Incorporated, where an impassioned critique of the transformation of US political form under the reign of Bush Jr. is traced and where lines of enmity are drawn. In it, Wolin magisterially traces the role of elites in truncating democracy in the United States, and though he overstates the nature of the changes between Bush and its predecessors – something that Wolin’s own writings of the nineties attest to – he offers a nomenclature of political forms that provides an important clue to understand the present predicament of power.30 With more than dim echoes of Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, in Democracy Incorporated Wolin argues that forms of total power, or totalitarianism as he calls it, can take different forms, even if the animating principle remains the same. Equipped with this caveat, Wolin thus challenges prevalent, self-satisfied accounts that will reduce the experience of total power to the historical instantiations of the past century and dismiss the idea that a deeply anti-democratic form of total power has crystallized in the United States, especially after 11 September 2001. Previous to this juncture, Wolin has argued that the nineties were distinguished by what he called an heir to the Economic Polity, the idea of Superpower which embodied a benign form of total power in its capitalist, neoliberal guise. Once more reverting to Aristotelian taxonomies, in Democracy Incorporated he identifies Superpower as the good political form that characterized the US of the Clinton years, with its booms and other neoliberal avatars, and Inverted Totalitarianism with its perverted form. Namely, if during the nineties democracy in the United States has been housed, and thus continued to be rendered domestic, by what Wolin calls Superpower, in the first decade of the millennium it became further subjugated by Inverted Totalitarianism, Superpower’s perverted form. Bold mine - Jbh

Damn, that is some really FRINGEy stuff. Who would have thought that there is a mainstream liberal political philosopher who thought the 1990's US was a better place than post 2001. Of course what is said in Truthdig is much more accurate than the peer reviewed literature of the field. <g> Jbh (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Vazquez-Arroyo's summary/abstract means what here? It is not an official opinion of JHU to be sure. It is V-A's opinion.

all of it by the newly minted president, who a few months later became a Nobel laureate for peace, thus lending a new lease of credibility to the benign face of American imperium, even if the war on terror is now Obama’s war (the continuous reliance on the mercenary armies of Blackwater has also become his.

And yet, we live in democratic times. At least this is the strange message one not only hears in the corridors of power in the west and across the political spectrum, but also among intellectuals: at one pole of the political spectrum the Freedom House celebrates the twentieth century as “the democratic century”; on the other, we have figures of impeccable leftist credentials, like Tom Nairn who asserts the awesome spread of democracy and the possibility of recasting a democratic form of national identity even if the spread of democracy has implied diluting it of substance. Also on the left, one finds the wide-eyed miraculism of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s now complete trilogy (Empire, Multitude, Commonwealth), who despite having European, mostly French and Italian theoretical signposts, is drenched with chronic American upbeatness and the pieties of the “can do” credo whose popularity is in inverse proportions with its political import

Does Wolin's revolution get into the summary? Nope. Not even a word. But you find a mention in the full paper - where the author finds it not worth placing in his summary's first 700 words (which has a readability of 19 -- which I managed to wade through reasonably quickly). The interesting, but totally unreadable snippet you give has a readability of 9. It is, in fact, less readable than the abstract I cited above. A readability index of 9 translates into a grade level of 20 (post-doctoral in the field) to comprehend. Indeed, V-A is not endorsing Wolin in that shard, he is saying "this is what Wolin argues" after avoiding mentioning him! Cheers -- but that sort of "mention" is exactly what one means by "fringe". And as an exercise, I invite you to rewrite the unreadable stuff into any normal language (French, German or English are fine by me, I never got past eight weeks of Greek, an introductory Russian dictionary, and four years of Latin, and I got into trouble using the wrong flavour of spoken Spanish in Mexico <g>). Collect (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)