User talk:Steeletrap

This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 20 days

Welcome!

Hello, Steeletrap, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stalwart111 09:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I am a longtime lurker but a newtime (official) user. I will read through these and hope to contribute to the community! Steeletrap (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request for Help...

First; no problem at all with you posting on my talk page. Feel free to do so any time. But I'm also happy for you to respond here - I'll keep an eye on this page too.

On Kinsella - there is often a general sense that consensus, once established, needs new evidence or for something to have changed for that consensus to change. Of course, consensus can change, but editors will often expect strong arguments to refute the claims/conclusions of a previous discussion.

On Hoppe - I think part of the problem is that the passage you added will likely be interpreted as original research, especially when you cite Hoppe's own book and ascribe it a meaning. Hoppe's book could be used as a source for quotes from Hoppe's book, but not as a source for interpretations of that quote. Using the other source was absolutely the right thing to do (though I'm sure you recognise the irony of first claiming Kinsella is not notable enough for an article here, then attempting to use him as a scholarly source of commentary about others in that field. Of course, notability and reliability are two very different things and one can be reliable but not notable. But anyway...). My suggestion would be to highlight the sources on the article talk page, suggest that the section be added and see what others have to say. "Controversial" things like that will often be reverted unless there is a strong pre-established consensus for inclusion.

On thesis - no, I wouldn't say it automatically gives you an unassailable bias but it is definitely something to be conscious of. It would likely get into WP:COI territory if your opinion was so strong that it impacted on your editing and resulted in you inserting your own research or opinion into articles. Wikipedia has a very different approach to such things than college/university studies so it pays to be careful. The important thing to remember is that we're building an encyclopaedia - there are going to be plenty of things here that you don't like or don't agree with. That is not reason enough to change them. This is a helpful essay in that regard.

Cheers, Stalwart111 22:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Stalwart is doing a much better job than I in giving advice. But the point about Hoppe is exactly what I'm trying to say. We can't take our own perceptions about passages in books and assert them as accepted opinion. You had mentioned (to Stalwart) that the remarks in Democracy "have widely been perceived to be anti-gay". Well, if you had added this remark to the Hoppe article, it would immediately be tagged as {{By whom}} or removed. I.e., who are these people who perceive the book as anti-gay? When you said (on the Hoppe talk page) there were no academic secondary sources, I launched into my HighBeam search. (I was too dumb to notice that the UNLV material was already in the article!) I'll comment further on the Hoppe talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I think you are getting worked up over this Hoppe stuff. I say this because of the rapid fire series of edits you've made on the talk page. You close by asking me to refer to the latest version of the article page. Please note I had posted a {{Inuse}} banner at the top of the talk page to try and avoid edit conflicts. When you made your edit (with the inuse banner up) I posted a {{edit conflict}} tag to show that I was referring to the previous comments. Also, WP:BRD says we should resolve the issues before launching back into editing an article. The idea is to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Well, rather than revert your article edits I think I'll tag them with some inline messages and/or section banners. The tags will attract other editors to chime in and/or make changes and/or revert your edits. Are we WP:COOL? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I violated wiki etiquette in any way. I wasn't (honestly) trying to get into an edit war; I was just trying to make necessary changes to the edit to reflect what I think it ought to be, so it could be evaluated with all of the requirements (e.g., secondary sources) met, and invited you to revert it. I was frustrated because I didn't feel like you addressed the points I was making (the UNLV thing was out of Left field), but will try to cool down and think about what I could've done better to communicate my points. Steeletrap (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Have a Scotch while you contemplate has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 01:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)01:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post a {{Inuse}} banner at the top of the article page while you undertake the edits, even if you are doing a series of them. Then remove it when done -- with your last edit. If you forget, someone will do so on their own if they see the article idle for awhile. – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

I thank you for continuing on the Hoppe edits. This is all a collaborative effort, even though we'd sometimes wish other editors would not push back on the WP:POLE. As you are a Masters candidate, I'm sure you can appreciate my remarks as being directed towards a better article. With this in mind, permit a few more words to the wise: 1. I noticed you mentioned "voting" with regard to the Kinsella deletion. WP does not work on voting (at least we try not to). 2. Don't ask if other editors have read such-and-such stuff, part of AGF is not asking that question because it implies that they have not. 3. Don't personalize the discussions in too blatant a fashion (like with your section heading). You want to attract other editors into the discussion and addressing me specifically may deter them. 4. Be sure to sign the talk page posts. If you don't, a bot may come along and do so for you and leave a note on your talk page. Many editors don't want to see bot edits on their watch lists, so they do the settings so that bot edits don't show up. That means they would miss the next posting on the discussion thread. (This is hardly a big deal for them or you, but your creditability as an editor will look better without bot signatures. 5. Most importantly, enjoy the process! Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Steeletrap, I bet you've seen some of the recent edits. (Duh, you must have if you are reading this!) And I bet you are not especially happy with them. Please don't think that SPECIFICO, Stalwart, and I are ganging up on you. SPECIFICO I know from prior editing interchanges. While he can be strident at times, I respect him and think he's a straight-shooter. (And I'm not punning around by saying "straight".) Stalwart seems to be on the up-and-up as well. In any event we're all following the WP:FIVEPILLARS to the best of our abilities in our efforts to improve the article and the encyclopedia. I'm sure you want to follow them too. – S. Rich (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I try to be... As you know (Steele), I came to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article after you drew my attention to it on my talk page and I can see why you had some concerns. Having had a look (and having had some initial discussion on the article talk page) I've started by cleaning it up a bit, removing some un-sourced stuff and focusing some of the text a bit more than it was. I've left the "homophobia" stuff in for now (though I have amended it quite a bit and have improved the sources, I think) but I have removed the "racist" stuff. I thought I should note it here because you raised it with me in particular but I'm happy to discuss it on the article talk page. Best bet would be to have a chat about some sources that discuss the idea (in some detail) and build a new section. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I"m starting to understand the rules a bit better. Whatever one's interpretation of the original passage (and I maintain it is crystal clear), wiki rules seem to indicate that one needs to cite credible secondary sources rather than original research. Given those rules, I think the new passage (which is confined to the quotation which prominent libertarian scholar Walter Block interprets/criticizes) is more appropriate for wikipedia. I'm sorry if I misconstrued the intention of the previous edits; I think that was a matter of me lacking familiarity with the wiki rules. Steeletrap (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's pretty spot on. Nobody expects you to "know all the rules" on day 1. And when you add WP:CONSENSUS to the interpretation of those rules, I'd be surprised if anyone really knew them. But you're getting the hang of things pretty quickly. Most of all it comes down to being WP:BOLD and the fact that I would so heavily edit an article about a subject I'm not familiar with shows how well that idea works in practice. Just don't be offended if someone comes in afterward and amends it - that's the whole idea! Most of all, have fun! Stalwart111 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy hyperinflation & gold edits

Take a look at my recent changes. I give you this heads-up to illustrate how POV can infect articles. (Not that I'm accusing you of this.) Regarding the bet, someone had said Murphy was predicting "hyperinflation", when he actually only mentioned that Farber had warned about it. (He probably did so to bolster his own warning.) But the TAC article did not have Murphy making the hyper-inflation prediction. Still, someone sees him mentioning the term and then writes that Murphy is making the prediction. The POV slant (unintentional?) in that edit served to make Murphy look bad by exaggerating the prediction (not just double-digit, but hyper), and then worse when it failed to materialize. Also, the sentence contains the advice to "buy gold & silver", which I've removed because no one has criticized him for making that particular comment. (But see SPECIFICO's comment.) I point these flaws out to illustrate how a lack of discipline in these edits can creep in. – S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich. I agree that explicating double-digit (10%) inflation is better than hyperinflation. To be clear, "hyperinflation" wasn't a paraphrase but an inference; perhaps it was a reasonable one, given Wikipedia's definition of hyperinflation as "a condition [in which] the general price level within an economy rapidly increases as the currency quickly loses real value", but it's much clearer and fairer to stick with double-digit inflation. Good change there. I disagree with you on the gold thing but SPECIFICO seems to be making my case for me. I have and will continue to be honest regarding my bias against the Mises Institute (I think they are cultish charlatans whose "economic" methodology is unscientific), but I don't think that this bias -- however strong -- necessarily precludes me from making substantive edits and improvements to LVMI-related pages (many (probably most) of which, for the record, have been made or substantially edited by an LVMI employee, -- similarly, that doesn't invalidate his edits, but it perhaps makes it a good thing that good-faith editors with strongly different views and deep knowledge of the Institute are devoted to improving its related pages). It's important to watch for bias and I hope you can continue to help me that- as well as more generally help acquaint me to wikipedia. I welcome continued collaboration with you. Steeletrap (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll you, SPECIFICO, and others work on this for a day or so because I'm off on a short WP:WB. – S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Steeletrap! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review as requested.

Hi got your note. Will take a look. It might be a good idea to post a note on the Economics Project talk page for additional comments. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Archive

Hello Steeltrap. I notice that you occasionally remove contents from your talk page, which is fine, but if you wish to allow others to refer to the closed threads, consider archiving them instead, either manually or with the bot that is described in the help pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to do this for purposes of helping others more easily reference the history. I will take a look at how to do it later tonight and will archive the deletions by the end of the week. Anyone who wants to do it for me before then is welcome to archive anything I've previously deleted. Steeletrap (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've given you the same auto-archiving tool as I use on my talk page. It will automatically start a new archive page and move things there once nothing has been added to a thread for 20 days. Once the first archive page is automatically created you can go back and add deleted threads to it if you wish. Stalwart111 00:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Stalwart! Incidentally, I plan on taking a break from editing for the next three days to read up on Wiki rules to get a better grasp of these and other rules. Steeletrap (talk)`~

Enjoy your break! Here is a template for you (if you wish): a {{wikibreak}} banner on your talk &/or userpage tells editors not to expect replies to messages, etc, during the break. – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing the template. Though I'm planning to take an edit break, I intend on being on wiki the next few days and will be able to respond messages, but I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I've always been a fan of learning on the job; being WP:BOLD. Maybe pick a a not-so-visible area that you have no interest in/understanding of. That makes it easier to get your head around rules like WP:V and WP:RS because you have no choice but to include only that which can be verified by reliable sources if you have no prior personal understanding of the subject (much like my approach to economics, to be honest). Anyway, I've started a first archive page for you with some of your old threads and the automatic archive will start with /Archive 2. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The New Editor's Barnstar
		Given our collective want to clog your talk page with all sorts of things, I thought it appropriate to further clog it with a small acknowledgement your efforts so far (here and in various articles). Good luck with future editing endeavours and have fun! Stalwart111 01:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well deserved. (And I had to LOL with Stewart's comment!) Here is yet another bit of helpful info: WP:Essays has all sorts of links to great info. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LRC

Please take a look at WP:AOBF. We simply have a disagreement about what should go into the article. Nothing more. The LRC article gets about 50 page-views daily. You and DickClarkMises have made the most edits to it. It has 38 page watchers. (My talk page has 64!) Besides, Libertarians are a tiny minority in the US. They, LRC, and LR himself are not worth getting worked up over. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood my comments. I was dropping out of the debate precisely because I didn't feel like I was able to assume good faith. This isn't logically equivalent to saying you are acting in bad faith; I never said this. Steeletrap (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. And I see how my including the AOBF link can be construed as implying that I was the one accused of BF. I was incorrect. In any event, as I see absolutely no suggestion of BF on your part, I encourage you continue to participate in the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steeletrap, you may have noticed that I've done a lot of editing on the Ron Paul newsletters article. (And more work is needed.) In this process, I see Ben Swann's piece as the last citation. Well, I commend you to [1] & [2]. In the first, we have the numbers: there are 9 (I will double check this!) "questionable" articles (my characterization trying to keep this sorta NPOV) out of 240 issues. And no verification that Rockwell was part of the questionable presentations. The second story mentions how various politicians (Obama, et al.) get smeared with the "racist" label as part of the political process. The commentator, Ben Swann, says it better than I can -- the process of seeking to term someone racist is a very base form of political discourse. I point these items out as an example of how editing WP can be challenging in a moral and intellectual fashion. As you were providing more and more evidence of LR's biases, I (really not knowing much about him) looked at this and became unsettled. Was it true? Well, one of the 5Ps came to my rescue -- Verify. In so doing, I dug through the Ron Paul newsletter stuff, cleaned it up, and finally found the Swann material. (Of course it was there all along.) In so doing I feel fairly comfortable with Rockwell's non-involvement with the controversial newsletter stuff. Well, my next step (after a good nights sleep) is to give another push on the WP:POLE. In so doing I hope to wrap up the newslettter story and clarify Rockwell's involvement. I invite you to re-assume GF and re-engage in the process. Your help in this process is wanted, needed, and appreciated. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No: your edits are a distortion of the issue that undermine the entires on these people. There is no unbiased way to exonerate Rockwell. You are appealing to one, non-notable, explicitly "movement" libertarian/Ron Paul/*supporting source from a local TV network and ignoring literally dozens of mainstream, credible, notable sources to the contrary. (Your biased source, by the way, does not say Rockwell didn't write the newsletters; it merely indicates that another person helped write them. Your being "fairly comfortable with Rockwell's non-involvement" is ridiculous given that your source gives no evidence against the claim, and given that a huge number of people -- deemed credible by mainstream sources -- to include Ron Paul's former chief of staff, say he wrote them, and the fact that he co-founded the company that published the newsletters and was listed as an "editor" on their mastheads.) Your edit also hides the fact that, as I have pointed out to you, Rockwell was listed as an editor of the newsletter on its masthead. And I am not getting involved, because I am not able to abide by wikipedia rules in my dealings with you at this point (assuming good faith). Steeletrap (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: didn't mean to type "Lew rockwell" here) Steeletrap (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC) And also note: there are far, far more than 9 "questionable" articles (unless you don't view anti-Semitic conspiracies and calling HIV-positive homosexuals as "murderers" and extreme anti-government paranoia as "controversial"). This is, again, a preposterous distortion that reiterates my conviction not to work on this article. Someone will do the research and come along and remove these distortions eventually. And by the way: I have read the rules closely enough to determine that assuming bad faith at this point is appropriate and compatible with them (this is particularly true given your previous ad hominem attacks on me). For you to ignore all of my mainstream sources and adopt uncritically a (Ron-Paul supporting) local newscaster's interpretation wholesale (which doesn't even assert Rockwell's non-involvement, but just insinuates the involvement of some other guy, and contradicts the Washington Post piece (and the words of a secretary at the newsletters company) in implying Paul's non-involvement) clearly indicates a bias on the subject. Steeletrap (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. Please don't say I am distorting things; if my edits are incorrect, point out what is wrong and/or make helpful changes. I mentioned "9" because that is what Swann says, and I said I'd double check the numbers. It doesn't help to say Swann is biased without looking at what he says. (Doing so is part of our evaluation of him as a WP:RS.) More work on the newsletter article is needed to put the Swann material and Kirchick material together -- particularly WRT the James Powell info. (Editing should not be a battle between the local news reporter vs. the fairly new (2 years out of college) news reporter. Either way we've gotta watch out for WP:JDLI.) I believe Rockwell was listed on the newsletter masthead as editor in chief on one issue, but that needs WP:V. Again, I'm sorry you think my earlier comments to you were ad hominem -- I did not attack you as a person. (I thought I was appealing to the Masters Thesis candidate to be self-critical.) You say "There is no unbiased way to exonerate Rockwell." Well, perhaps the opposite holds true, e.g., "There is no unbiased way to condemn Rockwell." Again, I'm

. – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculating about one's motives on the basis of no evidence to impute bad faith -- which is what you did, in saying that I am motivated to reject the notablity (and push for deletion) of certain Mises Institute certain pages by a self-interested desire to maintain the relevance of my Master's thesis relating to fringe American political movements (as opposed to good-faith editorial concern) -- is, in my view, clearly a personal attack. Superficially friendly rhetorical concessions don't change the fact that you made such an attack. (People can judge for themselves by looking here, at the first comment under April 2013.) Also, it's a distortion to say that the newsletter subject is a matter of "Swann" vs "Kirchick." It's actualy "Swann" vs dozens of mainstream articles in the media (from the Economist, reason, New York Times, and Washington Post) which say the articles were extremely racist, went on for years and years, and featured significant editorial involvement -- and probable authorship -- by Rockwell. You know this. Steeletrap (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

. I suggest you print out our discussions, talk page comments for the various articles you've edited, and the/your actual edits. Present the material to your thesis advisor and ask for his/her opinion as to my speculations. And ask your advisor to question you. (Also, if I find evidence that Rockwell (not Powell) wrote the offensive RP newsletter stuff, I shall certainly post it in the WP articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is only briefly mentioned (in a footnote) in my thesis, which does not say Rockwell "wrote the newsletters" (I have never made this argument) but that 1) he was a "contributing editor" to the newsletters who 2) set up with Ron Paul the company which published them and 3) that a copious number of credible sources (close to him/Paul0 have pinned him as their probable author. but I did ask her whether what is effectively an opinion piece by Ron Paul supporter Swann, with no new reporting other than an "outing" of a guy whom we only know wrote one article in one newsletter, (though (contra Swann) this was already reported by Kirchick) would be deemed a credible source, in a claim that conflicts with reporting by The New Republic/The New York Times/Washington Post/The Economist/Reason, and she (obviously) said no. She also approves of my connection of the newsletters to Rockwell's professed "paleolibertarian" ideology of the time (when he published articles sympathetic to former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's bid for governor; condemned Martin Luther King Jr.; and engaged (with Murray Rothbard) in a broad-scale appeal to racists. All of these claims are meticulously sourced, and will be evaluated by scholars with scrupulously standards of academic review. Steeletrap (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: here is just a sampling of the Ron Paul newsletters Kirchick has unearthed. The newsletters cited here -- and there are many, many more -- cover several years and far more editions than the "9" cited by Swann. Also note the "authorship" section's indication that Rockwell is characterized as "contributing editor" or "editor" of the newsletter. (odd title for someone just involved in "writing prescription letters, eh?) Given this formal title, it is frankly bizarre for you to come over here and -- ignoring all of my hard work in detailing numerous sources and eye-witnesses from the NYT, WP, Economist, Reason, the New Republic, and more sources, who say Rockwell was definitely heavily involved with and probably wrote the newsletters -- say that you are "fairly comfortable" that Rockwell was not involved with the newsletter. Given your personal attacks on me, and the fact that you base this extraordinary claim on an opinion piece by a Ron Paul supporting local news reporter. (you cite his long-winded opinions about accusations of racism against politicians, which has nothing to do with the truth of the newsletter authorship story.) http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive# Steeletrap (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at that page. Unfortunately, the links on it do not produce the actual newsletters. (At least the half-dozen that I've clicked so far.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is six years old, which is why the links are dead. I think it's pretty outlandish to assume that the excerpts are just lies. (Your source Swann doesn't even allege this). Update: I'm sure you're relieved to know that web archive has a version of the piece (which cites dozens of Newsletters over a period of severla years) from which the P.D.F. can be accessed. http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive# Here is one indicating Rockwell is the sole editor of the newsletter: http://web.archive.org/web/20130121052119/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf. Here is an earlier one referring to him as a contributing editor http://web.archive.org/web/20130121051947/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/masthead.pdf Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, where did I say the article contained lies? I'd simply like to WP:V what was said in the newsletter articles. V is a core principle of WP! If we don't verify, we don't automatically assume anything. But dead links don't help and none of the links on that page connected. The archived links you've just provided do help. Thanks you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of "verify" in the Wikipedia piece, it's pretty clear that a claim's mention in a credible secondary source such as the New Republic, bereft of challenge or correction, constitutes verification. Therefore, the web archive was superfluous. Steeletrap (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you say is true. Moreover, editing WP is a collaborative process. That means we can challenge and correct the material we read -- and these are additional steps in the verification process. AGF allows us to make changes to other editor's contributions and we don't get upset when our edits are corrected or improved upon. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I get upset that my positions are misconstrued, and it's difficult to assume good faith from someone who previously personally attacked and (without evidence) imputed bad faith motives to me. By the way: in regards to the "[only] nine [bad] newsletters" claim from the Ron Paul supporting local news anchor, here are some more racist or homophobic newsletters. (there is a bit of overlap with the previous link as some old newsletters are cited to contextualize remarks, but the vast vast majority are newsletters not published in Kirchick's first edition.) Clearly, this stuff went on for several years in several dozen newsletters. Note also the claim by "Ron Paul" (I use scare quotes because the evidence indicates it was almost certainly a ghostwriter) one of the newsletters that "“The editor, my old friend Lew Rockwell, was my chief of staff in the House, and he’s worked with me for 12 years on this newsletter.” Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Ron Paul. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The banner invites other editors to opine. If they think it is impossible to discuss, they won't say anything. But once the balance/undue banner is in place, the proper process is to keep it there until consensus is achieved. PS: While the banner is not a "maintenance template" the point of achieving consensus, which the banner draws attention to, still applies. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my reading of the rules. As I understand it, your edit is in opposition to WP:Con, and it therefore must be deleted unless some positive evidence is cited for it -- and you cite none. (Am I mistaken in my judgment here? If so, how/according to which rules?). I do agree that there is no productivity in getting into an edit war. I won't do that. But I ask you to respond to my comments in the talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that I've changed the RP banner and replied on the talk page. If there was consensus about the material in the main article, that consensus is OBE (Overcome By Events) with the creation of the new article. Please don't react to negatively to my efforts. Adding banners and tags to articles serves to alert other editors about concerns. Indeed, there are indexing protocols that compile the tags and editors go through the indexes to find and correct problems. I try to make my contributions helpful and within the rules. For the most part I've been successful in this effort. Please give me credit for knowing something about building this encyclopedia. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I react positively to your edit if I disagreed with it? I did not, notice, accuse you of vandalism or bad faith. Steeletrap (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, react negatively if you wish. The decision is up to you. I just wish you'd be more neutral. Something like "It looks like S.Rich has been editing for a while...perhaps he knows a bit more about this stuff than I do." If you react negatively on a regular basis, you'll burn out. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Tacitly affirming your authority, due to your greater experience and editorial savvy, would be in opposition to WP:Bold (that sort of attitude would undercut the ability of Wikipedia to grow, instead giving air to a sort of habitual acquiescence to authority). I thought your change was wrong-headed based on the merits (you didn't provide evidence for a change that was in opposition to WP: Con). That and only that is why I made the criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let my "authority" determine how BOLD you edit! My advice is about psychological reactions -- what happens in your gut when you see something I've done. My edits might be wrong, but I pray that they are not wrong-headed. For example, I tagged the RP article section for balance -- the better tag was UNDUE. Was I wrong? Yes, and I taught myself something. Was I wrong-headed? I hope not. – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than asking editors "which WP policies" pertain, I suggest doing a bit of/the research on your own. I do so by typing [[WP:xyz whatever in the search box. So for blogs, you come up with WP:BLOGS, which mentions WP:NEWSBLOG in the same policy. Other editors will typically ignore "which policy" requests because they are easy to find. – S. Rich (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was asking for the basis of your change to the article, however (since none was provided). So it wasn't as if I was asking: "What does x policy say" but rather: "What is the basis of your change"? Since, given that you didn't provide a reason, I would need to know that before we can have a discussion about whether it was proper or improper. Steeletrap (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this talk page comment: [3]. As you can see on the talk page, I was asking for clarification (from Carolmooredc) as to what she felt was the blog (as per her edit summary). And I referred to the policy for blogs. To explain further, in general, sometimes editors make a variety of changes and the ES only mentions some of the rationale. We use the summaries, the edits themselves, and the talk pages to figure out what is going on. When you say "what is the policy?" it looks like you don't know what the policy is re blogs -- that is why I was advising you on a method to research the policy yourself. (Very few editors will look up the policy for the other editor in order to post it on the talk page.) As for the changes -- I think you are mistaken. I did not change the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of PA

When you accuse others of PA, you are violating AGF. Specifically, here, [4] you bring up the accusation on another user's talk page. As long as your opinion was on your talk page and was between us, I had no complaint. But bringing it up on any other page is not proper. I ask that you "put up or shut up" in this regard. (Please see WP:WIAPA and note PA includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence...." ) So, please make a complaint about my comment(s) on the ANI or say nothing at all. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In these edits: [5], you are saying Carolmooredc was conducting a PA because she referred to the usage of references. This is not the case at all because she is referring to the editing that is going on and not you as a person. This edit: [6] applies as well. She is referring to the style of writing in the article, nothing more. You are quite correct, you are being "to sensitive about" these remarks. And your reaction, of accusing others of PA, seems to be an unfortunate result of that sensitivity. I ask that you stop assuming that remarks are directed to you personally, as you have in these 3 examples. There are a whole slew of essays on {{Civility}} right here. You've got to take a bit more time to read them, consider them, and put them to use. Thanks so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One (more) very positive comment: In this edit [7], a mere 10 days ago, you said you looked forward to a continued collaboration with me. That remark was most heartening, and I should have done a better job of letting you know. Please, I do want collaboration between all editors, not just you and I. Thanks why I've posted the messages above. I look for ways to collaborate with other editors (although not so successfully at times). I hope we can renew that spirit of collaboration. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Srich. Here is the WP:PA you made (the specific PA part is bolded, while the rest is just surrounding context): "You really are injecting your own ideas into articles. While this edit is a few days old, it provides an example: [1]. Why do I say this? Because you are describing the other people as Hoppe's friends. No reliable source supports this particular edit. None of the various respondents to the theory are described as friends. This is improper editing. By adding "friends" you imply that they are prejudiced in Hoppe's favor. Please take a critical look at yourself and your edits. Your Master's thesis is focused on what you perceive to be a group/institute which you consider non-notable. Beyond the improper editing, I fear this attitude is motivating you to bad-mouth the various people you are writing about in WP. The motivation for doing this is subtle, but I speculate that you are doing so to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis. After all, if Wikipedia "finds" these people to be notable, that finding undercuts your thesis." That's a personal attack (as WP defines it) because it imputes a bad faith motive on the basis of no evidence. (The situation is the same with Carol. It'd be like me saying that I suspect she is motivated to clear Lew Rockwell's name at the expense of sound editing because she is an anarchist libertarian.) I think it's a pretty clear cut situation, but if you reject the characterization, I am happy to go to some "higher" authority. (though I would be concerned only with verifying my claim that you made a PA, as opposed to imposing broader "disciplinary" measure against you) But I'm pretty sure this issue can be settled by your conceding that you made a negative "[accusation] about personal behavior that lack[s] evidence" (which is a PA according to WP rules), which is obviously what you did in the above-mentioned comment. Steeletrap (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are incorrect to say that I said she made a PA by use of the word hyperventilating. I only said that use of such a normatively-charged term in regards to edits others have made "borders" on PA (I have never heard "hyperventilate" used in metaphorical sense to describe text; use of that word implies a hyperventilating subject), and qualified that by saying that your previously PA against me may have made me overly sensitiv). I did say she made a PA when she imputed bad faith onto me on the basis of no evidence, by saying I use references as "weapons" and that my edits constitute a personal attack on Rockwell (that is to say, accusing me of writing a personal attack). That's because (like your previous remarks) WP:PA rules indicate that such a statement is a PA. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control

Hello Steeltrap. I left a note for you concerning an RfC you may not have seen at Gun Control Talk. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steeltrap. I know that you are still getting up to speed on various policies and procedures here. This link gives some guidance concerning RFCs, in case you have not read it previously. WP:RFC. After you review the text of the RfC you may wish to record your view in bold, as you will see that others have done on the page. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SPECIFICO. I have read through the piece and left the following comment.Strongly Support. This section conflates "gun control" (that is to say, a broad-based, non-discriminatory attempt by govs to limit or regulate private gun ownership) with persecutions of particular "enemies of the state" (Jews or dissidents) by genocidal regimes, that included violations of the gun rights of certain minority groups. This characterization is as misleading as referring to the seizure of private property from Jews as (to support Nazi causes and Aryan families) an example of economic redistributionism. The section also utterly fails to provide evidence of any causal between gun control and authoritarian governments; it just asserts the connection bereft of any empirical support. It needs to go. If you (SPECIFICO)are willing, I'd very much appreciate your checking out my comment and letting me know what (if any) formatting errors I made. This could be an important opportunity for learning from a more experienced editor! Steeletrap (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have reported myself at ANI per your accusation of PA. As this could be seen as a backhanded way of reporting you, I am notifying you. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I only ask that you please explicate the full context. Steeletrap (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihints re talk page remark revisions and time-stamps

Say, when you make changes to your comments, you might add 5 tildes ~~~~~ to the end of the revised comment (after your signature). This will add a new time-date stamp to the comment. For quick revisions, it is not a big deal. But if you make changes after another editor has responded, the added time-stamp will clarify as to what edit was made when. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) It'll look like this: 20:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the hint. I can see how that might be informative in discussions. I will take that into account in future edits. Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. Here is another hint: with this edit: [8] you removed the BLP template. I have no problem with the removal, but the edit summary was a bit inaccurate. The BLP issues had had extensive discussion. Accordingly, a better ES would say "Looks like BLP issues are resolved - removing template." (Or words to that effect.) Again, a minor issue as the particular edit summary will fade away as the edit history grows longer. – S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my recollection. My recollection is that originally you had a legitimate (specific) gripe (this was weeks ago, when I was first learning Wikipedia rules like NO OR) but following its resolution, you then refused to take them down despite having no argument for keeping them up. It was a similar situation in this regard to your edits on the Ron Paul newsletters and LewRockwell.com pages. Steeletrap (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO posted the BLP template here: [9] and Stalwart moved it here: [10]. I had no involvement with template placement. In any event, a lot of times templates are posted just so that someone will come by and fix the problem. For example, an article might be a resume in style, but the templating editor has no interest in cleaning it up. Rather than WP:DIY, they will post {{like resume}} and leave it at that. There is no need to open a discussion. But the template also converts automatically to a category which other editors can patrol and select for editing. Other times templates specifically call for discussion. If some time passes, and no discussion is opened up, it is proper to remove the template (assuming the particular issue is resolved. WP:TC has more info. (Also, you might note I've changed the term "banner" to "template" in my earlier remarks. In looking for guidance, I determined that "banner" has a particular meaning that does not apply in this case. I continue to climb on the learning curve, which makes WP such an interesting project.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem my recollection was wrong on the Hoppe page (I was probably confusing your edits there with yours on the other pages we've disagreed over). Thanks for the clarification. Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two better ways to change edits:

1. ~~dark night~~ [added later: cloudy day] (strike comment and introduce new comment in brackets with Added Later:

2. If you want to answer some earlier important point that no one else has noticed or was directed at you, then you can put [Insert] or [Inserted later] under the comments, several returns later so as not to interrupt the older response of the next person. I never used time stamps --5 tildes ~~~~~ -- cause didn't know about them. Even after 6 years and 10 months one can learn something new. Guess I'll use from now on. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another hint: Please take a look at WP:SHOUT. You've been pretty good about this, but I wanted you to be aware that some editors might think that you were SHOUTING in your talkpage comments. – S. Rich (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't familiar with that policy (obviously I was familiar with PA, but shouting does not necessarily entail that), but it makes a lot of sense. Steeletrap (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Also, it's simply a guideline, not policy. Here's more info: WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. – S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question on past editing

Welcome to Wikipedia. I only now realized that you are registered as a new member just since April 16. Your use of appropriate and proper Wikipedia terminology, policy wikilinks, formatting, etc from your very first edit and your editing style suggest you are very experienced in editing Wikipedia, which is one reason I have been frustrated by your edits and talk page comments. Because the libertarian issue and libertarian articles in general has had problems with banned users using new names - see WP:Sock puppets - I hope you don't mind if I ask if you have done extensive editing as an AnonIP or have changed user names? Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never. I emphatically deny your accusation. I became mildly obsessed with LvMI people a few months ago, in research I am conducting for a thesis regarding fringe political movements unique to the United States (as libertarianism in the von Mises Institute sense basically is). This led me to set up an account trying to clean up what I perceive to be an unencyclopedic political bias that runs through all of these libertarian articles (e.g., attempts to present fringe, unempirical "Austrian" economics as a part of mainstream academic dissent). I am (sort of) adept in Wikipedia because I take time to read the rules (though, as others can attest, I made a lot of mistakes at the beginning, and continue to do so). Your baseless accusations constitute a highly insulting personal attack. Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steel, Carol's question is reasonable. There may be no delicate way to ask it. I just today was rebuked by an admin for asking a similar kind of question on a user's talk page. I don't think she meant any insult or attack. I got the same question when I started, even though I was making so many basic blunders that I'd have expected any observer to know I was brand new. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per specifico, not an accusation, just one of those questions we are allowed to ask given the prevalence of banned sock puppets. I modified it from someone else's template. There would not be a big Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy page if it was not a problem.

However, you have clarified your very strong POV which is helpful for more neutral editors who want to comment on any editing disputes. And I guess I felt that POV which is why it got me a bit upset.

Another policy you might look at is WP:Conflict of interest. This only would come into effect if you were aciting under the direction of or being financially supported by, or expected your editing and its connection to your theses to get you a job in/grant from/etc, some institution, advocacy group, etc. that is similarly dedicated to proving libertarian and/or Austrian economic ideas are fringe. Again, do not take questions and concerns as personal attacks when they are not and are permissible and even recommended in Wikipedia. If you had a conflict of interest you could still edit wikipedia, but your edits in that area would be circumscribed. So if any of that does describe your motivation for editing, please read WP:Conflict of interest carefully. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with SPECIFICO (edit conflict). I had noticed you first said "Thank you so much! I am a longtime lurker but a newtime (official) user." The use of the word "official" lead me to believe you had made at least a few edits in the past as an IP. (Your mistakes and willingness to learn disabused me of that notion.) Please don't get so worked up over this. And please retract the accusation that Carol was making a highly insulting PA. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't retract any of this: from some preliminary research, such accusations appear to be fairly commonly regarded as Wikipedia personal attacks (so WP:Con is on my side here). (which is why the admin admonished SPECIFICO, whom I am very sympathetic to given the context of the awful stuff he dealt with from the gun control people, but who (in my view) should not have leveled the accusation.) While I do perceive her claim as a personal attack, the situation is sufficiently debateable that I would have been inclined to look the other way -- and certainly would not have publicly accused her of such -- had she not acted in a hostile and combative manner (as SPECIFICO agrees she did) on the Lew Rockwell talk page. I also reject your (Srich's) interpretation of my introductory comments. I made a total of 3 anonymous edits on my IP address in the past two years (none of which related to libertarian pages). She was accusing me of making substantive/extensive edits, which I did not. Steeletrap (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself: "I hope you don't mind if I ask if you have done extensive editing as an AnonIP or have changed user names? " Your answers on "extensive editing" were believable. End of discussion. I've left the WP:Conflict of interest question but don't demand an answer. Just making you aware... CarolMooreDC🗽 23:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt had you not acted so hostile on the Rockwell page. (Regarding this as a personal attack isn't just my opinion; it is widely accepted in the Wikipedia community, hence the admin's admonishment of SPECIFICO.) There is no COI as you've defined it. I have been clear from the start about my bias against the Mises Institute people. But the bias isn't the motivating factor for my edits, the vast majority of which have been accepted by the community. Rather, the motivating factor is a desire to make the articles associated with LvMI conform with NPOV, notability, and other wikipedia rules. And I stand to gain nothing by portraying them more accurately (which, given the grotesquely biased/sunny portrayal of these people's pages before my edits, does in effect (I suppose) mean portraying them more critically).My thesis is not normative in nature (about how "bad" people are) and does not cite Wikipedia. This is an obsession (with cleaning up the horrible violations of NPOV on the Mises pages) that is peripheral to my thesis, which I've developed independently of any changes I've added to Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Gun Control". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halbrook

Saw your post at DR. Since I think it is not permitted to respond there yet due to procedure, I wanted to reply here. I think you have raised two excellent arguments that I would like to address directly.

Is what the nazis did gun control
Is Halbrook notable or an expert, and are his views on guns and gun control generally considered fringe

The first is certainly going to be a more tough nut to crack, since it is much more philosophical and subjective. So I will focus on Halbrook first. After that is resolved, it can segue into the first, since if we can agree that Halbrook is a notable expert, than his opinion of if what the nazis did was gun control is relevant.

Argued and won 2 SCOTUS cases
Cited by SCOTUS multiple times in other cases
Wrote an amicus curae brief for the Heller case (the most important 2nd amendment case in decades), which was signed by the vice president, 55 senators and 200 representatives

Certainly this qualifies him as a legal expert. and ones whos opinions on gun laws (at least in the US) are not fringe

Multiple academic articles published in multiple journals. Certainly any particular journal can be discredited and say they have lax standards or that he gamed them, but to attempt to discredit all of them is a big stretch
- Those articles have been cited HUNDREDS of times in other journal articles
Called on as a gun control commenter by ABC, CNN, FOX, etc.
published multiple books from multiple non-vanity publishers
- Wrote a book "Target Switzerland" which won two international awards from Swiss groups

What kind of bar of notability/expertise are you proposing? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He might be a notable legal scholar/authority. If the assertions you make above are all true, he seems to me to be. (though you need to document that the journals are peer-reviewed and more concretely show what you mean by "argued and won 2 SCOTUS cases.") But his opinion is clearly a fringe view, as all the evidence (see my remarks on the DR page) shows that virtually no scholars publishing in RS consider Nazi Germany to have practiced gun control. (Similarly, Nobel Laureate chemist Kary Mullis is certainly a notable scientific scholar/authority, but his AIDS Denialism and Climate Change Denialism are fringe views.) In a literal sense Nazi Germany obviously practiced gun control, but the term "gun control" as we are debating it does not have a literal meaning, but rather a specific political meaning. If you conceive of it literally, then the "gun control" page would falls into absurdities (i.e. would feature extensive discussion of the incidence and morality of "gun controlling" parents keeping guns away from their preteens and toddlers.)

My proposed definition of gun control as a non-discriminatory, broad-based (probably Democratic) policy aimed at limiting and regulating the private ownership of guns is clearly more coherent and accurate (and in line with academic consensus of scholars Left and Right) than the literal definition of "all attempts to limit or regulate gun ownership or use" or even "all government limitation and regulation of private ownership of guns." (As I say, the former says that virtually all parents with firearms practice "gun control" while the latter absurdly implies that Alabama in 1850 had much stricter gun control than Massachusetts in 2013, since the former banned black people from gun ownership.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re scotus, he was the council in Printz which ruled part of the Brady bill unconstitutional, and for the council for the defendant in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company which ruled on some NFA gun rules, both cases which he won. I can certainly point you at some links if you would like additional WP:V, but as the list is somewhat long, please be specific about what you are requesting.

Gun control (and in general arms/weapons control) has a very long history. Your definition (non-discriminatory) is WP:RECENTISM which ignores the very long history that in many (if not most) cases was implemented in a discriminatory manner (by race, class, religion, etc). To restrict the topic to the last 50 years is ridiculous. further, much of the discriminatory gun control which you are trying to reject was couched and implemented while being described as "common sense gun control" etc, including the Nazi implementation and with much longer history the massive amount of gun control which specifically targeted black people in the US.

The dictionary definition is much more neutral "regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns", or "Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate the sale, purchase, or possession of firearms through licensing, registration, or identification requirements".

That some of those laws are applied discriminatorily does not make them any less laws, any more than marriage laws also includes anti-miscegenation, or education laws includes segregation.

Several mainstream (not rightwing gun-rights sources) discussing the discriminatory history (and present) of gun control,

gun control advocate Robert_Sherrill author of the pro-gun-control book "Saturday night special" : "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks"
LA Times : "To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control : Society: Revisionists see restrictive laws as a historically racist effort to control their community." http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-19/opinion/op-895_1_other-gun-control
In particular see page 718-719 http://books.google.com/books?id=tYME6Z35nyAC&pg=PA718&dq=history+of+gun+control&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ha6CUcqFK-WciAKyrYGYDQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20gun%20control&f=false
(economic discrimination, targeting minorities) http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1144049?uid=3739976&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102139931691
(same author, same subject, published in Guns in America: A Historical Reader, described as "Eschewing single-minded partisanship and emphasizing nuance and compromise, Jan E. Dizard and Robert Merrill Muth have assembled a diverse array of writings from all points on the ideological spectrum. The documents span the whole of American history, from Puritan sermons to contemporary NRA documents. The result is an indispensable panorama of the never-ending controversies over gun control, crime, hunting, and militias." http://books.google.com/books?id=ygcO6WyqrYkC&pg=PA390&dq=gun+control+discrimination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NbCCUduBOafYigLt7oGgBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gun%20control%20discrimination&f=false
Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) “(T)here are only about 3, 000 permits in New York City, and 25, 000carry permits. If you’re a street-corner grocer in Manhattan, good luck getting a gun permit. But among those who have been able to wrangle a precious carry permit out of the city’s bureaucracy are Donald Trump, Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, William Buckley, Jr., and David, John, Lawrence and Winthrop
NY Times on discriminatory (class?) handgun permit issuance in NYC : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/nyregion/20guns.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

Halbrook seems to be clearly notable. That does not make his view non-fringe. Your citations, by the way, do not justify any of your claims. (Sherrill is saying that the "Gun Control Act of 1968" was a misnomer; i.e., that it was NOT gun control at all, but an attempt to disarm blacks.) The second article describes the political activity of some blacks as "revisionist", which implies that they are out of the mainstream. Your other pieces either fail to clearly characterize efforts to disarm blacks as "gun control" or are not RS. Steeletrap (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets reverse the question. You wish to redefine gun control away from the dictionary definition, to include only "non discriminatory" uses. Do you have any sources to support that definition?

You are arguing that the law called "The gun control act of 1968" which is still in force, and remains the major restriction against machine guns, short barreled rifles, silencers etc, and also is the source of regulation for firearms dealers, was the subject of Miller, the biggest gun control/2nd amendment case before Heller (Miller being used as the cornerstone argument of almost all gun-control advocates) was not actually gun control? sherill is not saying it isn't gun control, hes saying its poorly implemented gun control, and racist to boot.

You cant just hand-wave away that many sources. Where are your sources saying that "true gun control is never discriminatory, and the sources that say otherwise are wrong". If its a fringe view, please show me the mainstream one. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to find a source saying that explicitly for the same reason you're not going to find a source saying that "income redistribution" does not include "confiscating all the property of a racial/ethnic group for the use of the rest of the population." It's just too obvious to say. My "proof" is the fact that virtually no mainstream sources refer to "gun control" as having occurred in Nazi Germany. (See the debate page). This is a far-right, fringe view. Maybe it can be discussed peripherally (e.g., "Halbrook argues...." )but it is ridiculous to have a section discussing "gun control in Nazi Germany" as if that characterization is accepted by mainstream academic discourse. As Bernard Harcourt put it, "It is absurd to even try to characterize [the policies of Nazi Germany] as either pro- or anti-gun control." The burden of proof is on you to establish that "gun control" is an accepted, non-controversial characterization of what happened on Nazi Germany. You aren't only failing to meet that burden of proof, but failing to demonstrate that a significant, non-fringe element of academic discourse believes Nazi Germany practiced "gun control." Steeletrap (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore nazis for this paragraph. Just stick to "non-discriminatory regulation". Your analogy to income redistribution has the same issue. You can't define away misuse of a law/idea as not being that idea. By that logic there is no such thing as gun violence, since that is misuse of the tool of guns. If you are stipulating that there are no sources conforming to your definition, and there are sources conforming to mine (the dictionary, "right wing" sources, "history of gun control" sources) then YOUR definition would be WP:OR and WP:FRINGE

Regarding nazi use, If there are sources saying one thing, and no sources saying the opposite, its an argument towards WP:UNDUE not WP:FRINGE. Its an plausible answer to say "The nazi use of gun control was unimportant", not that it wasn't actually gun control. (I stipulate you can find lots of sources saying that "even if the Jews had had guns, it wouldn't have mattered". You can also find sources saying that the nazis were not fans of non-discriminatory gun control (IE, they did loosen them for loyal germans (excluding Jews, communists, homosexuals, etc) There are however zero actually contradicting the assertion that they did implement gun control targeted at Jews in a discriminatory manner. See previous paragraph.

My larger problem is that If we accept your definition not only does it mean removal of the german stuff, it also would mandate removal of the exceptionally well documented (and frankly patently obvious) racist history of gun control in the US. you also seem to be implying that because some (I, other editors, "the right wing") believe some implementations of gun control to be racist, we believe that by definition all gun control is racist , which is a strawman. the topic needs to be discussed as a whole.

to be explicit, I do not think that most gun laws today are intended to be racist. I believe that in many cases the proponents have good intentions, but flawed logic. I do think that many gun control laws tend to be classist (some intentionally some not), with restrictions not applying to the rich or famous, or otherwise powerful and in the US classist does have an implicit overlap with racist.

I also stipulate that in the scheme of the holocaust, Nazi use of gun control was not hugely important (but it was specifically implemented to make it easier). However not being important in the scope of the holocause does not mean it is not important in the scope of "history of gun/arms control", where it becomes one more data point in the frankly hundreds of years of discriminatory weapons laws. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that we should excuse "bad" examples of gun control. (If you had an empirically-rigorous example of a gun control policy which led to much more death, that would be a "bad" example.) I am arguing that we shouldn't adopt unconventional definitions of terms (such as "income redistribution" in regards to confiscation of the property of Jews by Nazi Germany, which is in a literal sense what occurred but is misleading in an academic and colloquial sense) to portray policies in a bad light. Everyone knows that Nazis oppressed Jews and stole all their property (including guns). But when you say they practiced "gun control" people are going to think that this was a broad-based anti-gun policy of Nazi Germany. In fact, the opposite appears to have been true. You can cite your fringe source under the "criticism" section and claim that gun control led to the Holocaust or whatever, but it's utterly absurd to have "Gun control in nazi germany" as an incontrovertible characterization of one of only four examples of "historical gun control" in the WP article. Steeletrap (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOBODY is arguing that gun control LED to the holocaust. We are saying it (along with many other policies) was used to IMPLEMENT the holocaust (particularly Kristallnacht). I agree we should have many more examples of historical and global use, and that the lack of them (if permanent) would be a POV issue. but that is a justification for adding uses in modern europe, canada etc, not justification to remove the "bad" ones. Nobody is going to think it was a "broad based" policy. We are repeatedly mentioning in the section that it applied only towards jews, and that the "good" germans had relaxed laws. Frankly, this is a fact in my argument's favor! Of course he loosened laws for the germans, he wanted them all trained and available to fight and kill their enemies (countries, or races). That is not evidence against the fact of gun control, it is more evidence that it was used as a tool of oppression! Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say you aren't claiming it led to the Holocaust while maintaining it was "used as a tool of oppression" (saying it was a "tool" for oppression implies it facilitated (or causally contributed to) it.) And see the Wikipedia page. Bernard Harcourt, who is a Professor of Political Science and Professor of Law at the University of Chicago (an elite university with a decidedly conservative/libertarian bent), says it is "absurd" to refer to Nazi Germany as having practiced gun control. He is an abundantly RS, and as far as I can tell, the only such source that has ever addressed the (in my view, absurd) claim that the Nazis practiced gun control. Does not this cast doubt upon your claim? Steeletrap (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not understand the difference between "cause" and "used"? I note that you assume the notability/reliablility of Harcourt, but demanded many sources for Halbrook.

He does not say calling disarming the jews gun control is absurd. "The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control and "It is absurd to even try to characterize this as either pro- or anti-gun control."

What is absurd is calling it pro or anti gun control. I agree. He was both! That has ZERO impact on if it was in fact gun control.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Nazi Germany's policies were neither "pro or anti gun control," then it can't be characterized as having practiced gun control in any substantive sense. Alas, this thread needs to die. I've made my case and believe it's overwhelming. Steeletrap (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So because you cannot say that the US government is pro or anti gun control (which is a fair assessment of the current situation imo since the government itself is split on the matter), that we did not implement gun control? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking of policies, not individual perspectives. I am tired of this debate being waged on my wall. The evidence for my view is overwhelming. You can discuss this more on the DR or talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Note

Hello Steeltrap. On a non-WP note, could you send me an email using the email link on the left maegin of my user page so that I can ask you a question about your academic work? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SPECIFICO. I like and respect you very much from what I know about you, but I am a bit paranoid about doing this because I do not want to be outed on WP. Maybe down the road we can trade emails :). You are welcome to ask any question on this page, particularly as it relates to COI concerns. Steeletrap (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

got it, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puh-lease don't take it personally! I am quite sure you wouldn't out me. I just don't know you well enough to be 100% sure. And being outed would suck, given the cultish nature of the von Mises Insitute "students and supporters" and how I have insisted on making their associated pages Encyclopedic and NPOV (e.g., by clarifying that "Argumentation Ethics" is not an argument that has been received and discussed in mainstream discourse -- or indeed, by anyone apart from Hoppe's co-workers and/or personal friends). Steeletrap (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you publish your thesis one day your identity will presumably be known at least to your publisher. For WP purposes, another alternative is a disposable email address, e.g. Steeltrap@gmail.com. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will, but it's likely to get less attention than being "outed" in a dramatic public sense. I thought of the disposable email thing, but I am worried I'll "slip up" on the name form or whatever (I am quite careless!) Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable the "allow other users to email me" option in your preferences they may send you emails without revealing your email address. You may reply to them in the same manner if they do it as well. no risk of slip up as long as you don't reply from your normal email clientGaijin42 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on thesis

People have expressed concern over a potential COI with my edits of Ludwig von Mises Institute associated people as it relates to my thesis. Let me issue a clarification as to why this isn't the case. My thesis is not normative, insofar as it does not argue that anyone is a charlatan or a racist or whatever (so the evidence I've offered on WP that might be used in support of these beliefs in regards to LvMI types has no bearing on my thesis). It simply examines the behavioral dynamics of (specifically American) fringe political movements (and note: the "anarchist (American) libertarian" types associated with the von Mises Institute were suggested to me by my adviser as one of many fringe groups to study; so it is not as if I am trying to "justify" their characterization as a fringe group, as this is widely supported/accepted.)

Without giving away my methodological approach, I will say that I am examining the behavorial dynamics of fringe political groups in terms of their underlying motivations. (E.g., exposure to and interaction with American cultural/political norms; personal circumstances of fellow travelers; internal structures aimed at creating and maintaining "true believers", and so forth.) If I am successful, the thesis will be value-free and strictly descriptive, describing the "Why" behind the actions of groups like "ludwig von mises institute" rather than condemning them. This is something I have to be careful about, as I personally find "Ludwig von mises institute" to be the most dislikeable fringe group I've come across so far. By "taking it out" on Wikipedia through correcting the record on their absurdly biased WP: pages, I have found a way to channeling that irritation/dislike in a manner independent of my (strictly empirical, ideally) thesis. But my WP edits (which I have discussed with my adviser) have no bearing whatsoever on the academic integrity of my thesis. Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I should say that I did learn one important on Wikipedia related to my thesis, prompted by a comment by SPECIFICO. "Austrian Economics" as the Mises Institute conceives of it may be unempirical (read: unscientific) fringe stuff, but some Austrian Economists come from a very different tradition. The "Hayek" tradition (named after Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek) is skeptical of econometrics because there are a ton of variables governing human action, and models are often going to miss out on those. However, they do not reject it wholesale (much less "in principle"). This tradition is used in support of a modest libertarianism/conservatism, that is skeptical of economic interventions into the (naturally productive) free market, but makes plenty of exceptions for intervention in areas where it has been clearly (empirically) shown to be socially optimal. (for example, Hayek supported generous funding for infrastructure and public education)

The "Rothbard" tradition, loudly upheld today by Ron Paul and the "Von Mises Institute economists" (like Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella Gary North and Robert P. Murphy -- who, it should be noted, often lack any formal economic education), says that human action in principle cannot be captured by statistical analysis. The reason for this is that we're apparently too complicated to be broken down by naturalistic models (i.e. the scientific method), and therefore are magical beings in some sense (their conception of human beings is basically an unreconstructed Cartesian Dualism). It is used to justify anarcho-capitalism. It represents not only pseudoscience but a form of denialism, insofar as it claims that even the best mainstream statistical models (which, as a matter of fact, can predict human action with great accuracy) are bunk.

The two traditions get confused because the Rothbard tradition wants the mainstream credibility of the Hayekian one (though their personal blogs deride him as a "socialist"), and because there is some ethnic (Austrian) and methodological overlap between the two. But they couldn't be more different. I am careful to differentiate between the two "Austrian" traditions in my thesis. One is a part of accepted mainstream economic dissent while the other is regarded as pseudo-scientific. (Interestingly, the obscure nature of this distinction also helps to protect the "pure" Austrians from the fringe label.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way it looks to me personally is that debunking non-mainstream academic and non-academic theorists, some of whom may have more public, if not academic, credibility than you or your advisor, may be quite satisfying. (To take a crack at academia in general when it comes to public policy, King George doubtless had his "scholars" debunking that fringe crank cannabis growing farmer Tom Jefferson.) But your hostility towards the individuals you target is quite evident in your edits and your talk page comments - and negativity creates negativity. Most people don't work on an article unless they have at least some POV or why bother to do all that work for free?

So its helpful to not set others off. One must keep one's POV under control so it doesn't come off like live firecrackers setting off sleeping firecrackers and disrupting editing in general.

It took me a couple years to really get into the WIKIPEDIA FIRST head and to happily follow policy,but obviously pov editing, especially BLP attacks which I deal with a lot, can still set me off. I know it can take others a while as well to get into the WIKIPEDIA FIRST head. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with virtually everything you say. I think I've done well keeping my biases under control (while you haven't, hence your (as SPECIFICO also pointed out) being hostile to me because I was providing unflattering information about Lew Rockwell, a person you appear to like). Wikipedia seems to agree, as most of my changes have held up. Also: Thomas Jefferson would have laughed hysterically at the anti-empirical "science" of Austrian economics in the Mises Institute sense. Steeletrap (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Steeletrap, comparing the number of edits that you've made (860) [11] to Carolmooredc's 23,592 edits is not a very convincing argument. Editors who persist, as Carol has, in their contributions do so as volunteers and help build this encyclopedia. Those that get blocked or admonished repeatedly soon give up because they are WP:NOTHERE for the project. As for Jefferson, he had quite a problem: he sought to reduce the debt, lower taxes, fight for the dignity of all human beings, and yet held slaves. Comparing 18th century thinking with 20th century thinking is not a very intellectually satisfying exercise. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is often the case, you seem to be spending a lot of energy responding to claims I didn't make. I was not saying that my contributions (in the main) are better than Carol's 24,000 (in the main), though I (with SPECIFICO) criticized her for making hostile comments on the LRW thread, and strongly believe my contributions to that piece (and talkpage) were more effective than hers (I only raise this point in response to her criticism above). I was simply saying that the successful rate of mine -- which tend to be held up by editors other than yourself (who, citing "NPOV", recently changed an edit of mine that described as "derogatory" newsletters which called blacks "animals" and 95% criminal, and suggested blacks who wanted to re-name NYC after MLK should call it "Zoovile"; your non-"NPOV" change begs the question of what exactly you would consider to be a "derogatory" remark about a minority group to be, and indeed, whether you think the term "derogatory" has any descriptive meaning whatsoever)-- supports my view that I am handling my biases well. The Jefferson analogy was hers (not mine) and I was chiding her about it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Swann AfD error

Technical error: in the next to last sentence of your nom, you have [12] as a link. Rather than trying a fix on my own (because I'm not sure what is your intended target) I suggest you tweak it. But I'm not sure, either, on what sort of technical tweaking is needed. . – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, Srich. The deletion thing is a nightmare for me; I am still struggling with all of the formatting rules. I invite and encourage you to edit any formatting errors (or layout inadequacies) you think exist on that page/my nom. Steeletrap (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I'd be more than happy to, but it looks like S. Rich and Tikiwont have sorted everything already. It didn't have many problems - all minor stuff. To make it easier for yourself, you might like to enable Twinkle, a set of tools that gives your an automated XFD function to nominate things for deletion. It will create the discussion, amend the log, add a template to the article and notify the creator all in one click. Awesome stuff! Stalwart111 22:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend twinkle if you do a lot of AFD/PROD/CSD work. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clark COI

WP:COI gives us the guidance. If you think there is an actionable COI WRT any editor, you might post it on the WP:COIN. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: Steeletrap - thanks for taking that discussion off the article talk page.

Please see: Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest first sentence: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN)... Yet the first thing you do is bring it up here. He is the one to explain it and if you are not satisfied you can bring it to WP:COIN (noticeboard). Bringing it up on a talk page of an article where there is a debate is seen as a way of intimidating editors rather than being direct with them.
You also should bring your problems with his edits up here first so others can opine. If he doesn't answer in 2 or 3 days, leave a note on his talk page that you'd like him to participate. A lot of editors will take posts like that and just move them over to the talk page and respond there (I certainly do).
Wikipedia:COI#Writing_about_yourself_and_people_you_know actually isn't taken that seriously at WP:COIN unless you work directly for or with someone, are their best buddy, or married to them. Past loose associations, nodding acquaintances, etc. are seen as basis of strong POVs, but not usually COIs and are looked on on a case by case basis. See the 2012 Wikipedia:RFC/COI which showed how many people dislike who COI policy and actually set me quite a bit more against WP:COI - except in those very close relationship circumstances. I think a lot of other people also were influenced that way.
Working with a few people 7 years ago and writing a BLP might be taken less seriously than ... well, let me ask you a much more specific question than the more general one I asked above, COI wise: your academic adviser isn't the person who most influences whether or not your dissertation gets you a PhD, is s/he? If so, and you told her you were criticizing people s/he didn't like on Wikipedia, now that would be a conflict of interest because it would affect your future life and financial prospects. If it's not true in your case, but could be in someone elses, well, that's a good example of a real conflict of interest. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've restored the talk on Murphy. Deleting our discussion was not proper in that we do not "refactor" comments made by others. But here's what you can do. Give others 24 hours to add their 2 cents. If nothing shows up, add a {{hat}} to the top of the discussion (below the heading) and a {{hab}} at the bottom. You can "pipe" the hat with a comment. Something like "{{hat|Resolved discussion re COI}}." This will collapse the discussion, yet leave it available for whoever want to see it. (BTW, this is something I learned about after 3 years of editing, so you are on the fast-track editorship course.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were only person discussing it with him and you agreed, it would be ok for you both to take it off. But its up to you guys how to do it. For future ref. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer having it taken down but don't have strong feelings in any case. My position is that I think he has a COI but I don't know the rules well enough to pursue it. I also think these sort of things are inflammatory and are likely to provoke retaliatory accusations. I wouldn't have brought it up if I did not think he had already conceded COI related to LvMI pages. (I am not sure why I thought that.) Steeletrap (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Carol's advice in mind, hat it now, and then take it off in a day or so. – S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steeletrap. You have new messages at Srich32977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Consensus

Steeletrap, I think you are not quite right on WP:CONSENSUS. It is the process by which decisions are made, not the end result. You remarked to Clark that a certain version of the Murphy article had existed for some time. (I paraphrase this with abandon.) Well, this does not mean that CON had been used to established that (current) version of the article. In fact, changes are made to articles all the time and a version (which had been the subject of a dispute) will incrementally change over time. In such situations, the old CON has no application. Why? because "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." See: WP:EDITCONCENSUS. When we edit, each edit is subject to examination. We AGF the edits as part of those evaluations and if we do not like what was done, we WP:BRD the particular edit. So, my advice is to not argue that an old CON militates against change. WP is a very dynamic process, and change (e.g., improvements) occur with each edit. – S. Rich (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your reading of Wiki guidelines. CON appears to be established after editors do not object to an addition over a reasonable period of time. CON can be broken but arguments have to be given for it. My remarks to Dick, who was deleting the page without providing a specific argument, were quite appropriate. Steeletrap (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert: Please see Wikipedia:Con#Consensus_can_change. CarolMooreDC🗽 06:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a second look at the flow-diagram on the EDITCONSENSUS guideline. It says we should seek compromise when we don't agree with the edit. – S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously not an absolute, or it would entail "compromises" with all sorts of absurd positions (e.g., Lew Rockwell's apparent view that HIV does not cause AIDS). If you find someone's reasoning utterly unconvincing (as SPECIFICO and I find yours on the LRC page), and indeed no specific argument is made for her/his position, you should not "compromise." I have sought compromise when I disagree but consider alternative positions reasonable (see the title on the Murphy page). I do not seek it if I consider a position to be unreasonable (e.g., your (in my view, preposterous) claim that an opinion piece by Ben Swann "comfortably" exonerates Rockwell from a role in the newsletters, despite the copious RS/physical evidence/admission of some involvement by LW/public testimony of literally a dozen prominent libertarians with ties to Paul or Rockwell. Steeletrap (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note regarding your accusation about Rockwell's views on AIDs, per WP:BLP: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] CarolMooreDC🗽 06:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, have you listened to his podcast on AIDS? Also, these are remarks on my talk page, not encyclopedic edits to Lew's page. And if you regularly offer a platform to a view without any evidence going for it (such as Holocaust Denial or Evolution Denial), which Lew has time and again in regards to AIDS denial (not only in dozens of articles on LRC but in LRC conferences and podcasts), it is reasonable to assume you are sympathetic to or supportive of that view. Why else would you be giving it a platform when it is utterly lacking in evidence? So I stand by my statement. It is colloquially reasonable to call Lew an AIDS Denialist even though it would be completely unencyclopedic and should never be listed on his Wikipedia page (though the fact that he has given a forum to Denialists can and should be). Steeletrap (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is a personal attack to say "it is reasonable to assume you are sympathetic to or supportive of that view." You are making a lot of assumptions you have no proof of (like I regularly read Rockwell's website for personal edification, not to mention that I even know about any of that material). If you want to make these accusations on your talk page against Rockwell in order to scare people out of editing his page or whatever (itself a dubious motivation), then provide the evidence here. Otherwise don't bother. We don't "engage in the spread of titillating claims" here.

If you can find WP:RS that actually discuss his currently putting that sort of thing in his articles, it's accept able to use it, and even to link to a few primary source examples. It is not acceptable to use those primary sources to indict someone in the article itself (it's called cherrypicking).

Furthermore, given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration. It's just a matter of someone being sufficiently motivated to present the copious evidence of your BLP violating habits to the proper venue. CarolMooreDC🗽 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get back to my thread. I was advising on the editing process and how building consensus as to article development is important. (Indeed, the above illustrates how personal views can disrupt the process.) Compare – I might be passionately pro/anti-Klingon and view their sexual habits and mores as completely admirable/repugnant. But other people may hold opposite views. Only I am absolutely right about my views and I feel that compromising my views with those who disagree is wrong. It so happens that some of those people want to edit WP and inject their views into the articles. Should I compromise my views? No! But I can (and must) compromise in the edits I make because I am not the be-all and end-all authority on Klingonism. – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Swann deletion discussion

You might add something like "[by OP]" after your commets. (See: WP:Glossary#O.) Editors will better understand that you are the Original Poster, and not another/new editor adding commentary. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable (I did it). Also: do note that your justification for arguing "keep" for Swann is unsound. By claiming Swann meets the first criterion of WP:Creative, you show you misunderstand it. That criterion states that a journalist must be "widely cited" by RS journalists. Having had one (or, for that matter, two or three or four) citation in one RS ever does not make one "widely cited" by RS journalists. Steeletrap (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite flattered that you took up my recommendation! I should have been clearer. A better place for "OP" would be immediately after the 'Comment. (This is something that I've seen in other discussions. IMHO it just looks better. There is no Manual of Style or Guideline that even suggests it to my knowledge.) If you like, I'll move the OP comment for you (tomorrow). As for Swann, I really don't GAF. We'll let the community decide. – S. Rich (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do on the edits. And you do GAF about WP guidelines. Therefore, you should, in my view, GAF about basing an argument that affects WP on a false understanding one of them. Steeletrap (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous edits on Hans-Herman Hoppe

At this diff I removed the libelous section header "Alleged advocacy of anti-gay violence" which was not supported by the sources; you also said Block accused him of aggressive violence which he did not, a second libel. Please see Wikipedia:Libel and know you'll be reported if you put it back in again.

I put in relevant material that is in the sources. My edit summary read: removed attack WP:OR and misinterpretation and rewrite per sources; block comment irrelevant POV inclusion here, put in his bio; As I wrote above: "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (To clarify some of language in arbitration link: they don't usually go straight to a ban, unless for example you keep reverting libelous material; they would explain WP:BLP policy, watch you and even give you some mentorship; maybe give you blocks a bit quicker if you do something naughty; and if you don't improve your behavior, then they'll consider topic bans.) CarolMooreDC🗽 16:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is so overwrought it scarcely merits a response. The title you are objecting to is a paraphrase of the text of section, which has for weeks been tacitly approved by three editosr apart from me and therefore constitutes WP:Con. I think it's a paraphrase of Block's remarks, and his view that Hoppe violates the non-aggression principle; while Block "abhors" gays, he criticizes Hoppe's vision of "banning gays from polite society" for violating the NAP, which is to say advocating aggressive violence against them. You can disagree and argue WP:SYN but these tactics are unacceptable and will not go unaddressed. Steeletrap (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As discussed on the article talk page., this edit [13] was disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm leaving Wikipedia; this harassment is just too much. For the record, I have with good cause consistently regarded you as obscenely biased (hilariously believing that a local newscaster's opinion piece exonerates all my evidence against Rockwell) and devoted to protecting LvMI people. I staunchly believe that my edits regarding the libertarian people will be held up by neutral members of the community. What's hilarious is that Carol is the one violating WP:Con here (in a section three other editors agreed on) and I'm merely reverting her personal-attack supported edits. Steeletrap (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, if one has a strong POV in an area, it's better to learn the ropes in a less controversial area since one will tend not to believe what editors with opposing views say. I certainly found that to be true editing in the Israel-Palestine area and so it took me longer to believe things they were telling me about policy that were in fact true. After 5 or 6 or 7 years of editing 10 or 15 hours a week one does get pretty good at knowing what the community will and will not approve of. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, your conduct here (originally read "you're an embarassment" -- was a typographical error that was misconstrued as a personal attack) is an embarrassment to this community and you are in no position to lecture anyone. Steeletrap (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the typical policy language that we've used regarding your edits, that was a personal attack. Not helping you. See WP:No personal attacks for an explanation of the difference. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Steeletrap. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have your wish, S_rich; I'm out (and will not create a "sockpuppet" or anything so absurd as that). I see no reason to be subject to such poor treatment and harassment. The problem for you and Carol (who -- to talk about bias -- has explicitly said on the talk pages of Rockwell and Tucker that these men are too nice and have changed too much to report the truth about them) is that my edits to the pages of your favored scholars have already been made and NPOV editors will acknowledge their veracity. Steeletrap (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish that you'd join the community and follow the WP:5Ps – in all regards. But if you are WP:NOTHERE, then so be it. You can simply stop editing, or WP:RETIRE or WP:VANISH. – S. Rich (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really still going with the pretense that this is about Wikipedia rules? Mind=Blown. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steeltrap, rather than engage in discourse and dispute when it is difficult for you to remain levelheaded, please consider the alternative to bring your concerns to one of the dispute resolution channels here. They are intended to provide constructive channels which deal with issues in an impersonal and open manner. Please consider this as an alternative to dropping out. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invite and encourage anyone who is interested in drudging up the history of my edits -- specifically regarding Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, LewRockwell.com, and Ron Paul newsletters -- and comparing my contributions to those of Carol and Rich, with a particular eye to her repeated WP:PA against me, to do so. I am too irritated to do this for now. The sharing of information will go on without me and my substantive edits to this Encyclopedia, I am confident, will mostly remain in place. This effectively comes down to a personal decision which makes it an easy call. Steeletrap (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of DR is not to make more work for you. I'm not familiar with the various channels, but there are separate ones to review content and to review user conduct [RFC/USER)]. After you regain your composure, please consider doing that. You can ask for help at the ANI for setting up your matters for review. The process is not intended to burden new editors or those who are not familiar with the details of procedure. You will find supportive admins to assist you. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SPECIFICO. You are certainly right that it is foolish to make decisions when one is angry; a very hard lesson to learn, but we have to try. Are there really channels where you can report this and they will do the research for you? I feel as if I'd have to write up a three page microsoft word document to properly contextualize my claim of harassment. Steeletrap (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others may be more knowledgeable than I as to enumerating your options, but you could start at [14] this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, rather than think of this in terms of a claim or grievance, just think of it as a request for evaluation and possible mediation of the circumstances. Less stressful and more constructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that persistent and/or flagrant BLP violations go to WP:BLPN. I'd prefer to do other things that document all the ones I've seen, not to mention investigate others, so I'd be happy if Steeletrap just learned the WP:BLP rules and got with the program. Note that Specifico already has been report twice to WP:ANI for things that looked a lot less serious than some of the things you've done, so you actually have relatively tolerant (dare I say libertarian?) editors so far. :-) CarolMooreDC🗽

The two ANI reports on SPECIFICO were not well-taken. The second one was basically saying an earlier ANI had been posted. No action has been taken on the first. The posting of any ANI does not, in itself, constitute evidence that an editor has misbehaved. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert:} You are correct. And the ones vs. SPECIFICO were pretty feeble and even amusing. I tend to avoid ani myself except for obvious sockpuppets and vandals who need immediately attention, and I run into several of those. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, As even your colleague Srich notes, you are getting it quite wrong when it comes to WP:BLPN. I apologize for losing my temper and using shrill language. In reference to the PA accusation above: well, since I have never made a PA before, I should be given the benefit of the doubt on my (true) statement above that the appearance of the ad hominem stemmed from typographical error. (If I were to say it were "ghost written", maybe you would give me the benefit of the doubt!) However, please note that this (again, inappropriate) reaction was in response to harassment from Carol and acquiesence to such harassment from Srich. I will channel my righteous anger into more productive means of holding Carol accountable for her actions. Steeletrap (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Carol. Did you really intend to make such a comment here? SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]