Talk:CJ Hopkins

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CJ Hopkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130624003827/http://www.broadwayplaypubl.com/authors.htm to http://www.broadwayplaypubl.com/authors.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305172547/http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/philbib/a-z/veranstaltungen/deraufstand.html to http://www.fu-berlin.de/sites/philbib/a-z/veranstaltungen/deraufstand.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611003315/http://www.theatretoursinternational.com/PastShows/PSInternational/PSHC.html to http://www.theatretoursinternational.com/PastShows/PSInternational/PSHC.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Autobio concerns

Looking at the history of the article, it appears that much of the info was added without any source. Mainly, multiple photos have all been uploaded to commons by Königubu, spanning several years, and this editor has also added unsourced personal information, such as birth data and birth place. The article also emphasized WP:PEACOCK phrases like "award winning", and this lead has been copied or closely paraphrased by Hopkins on his own bios on his websites etc. This suggests a close familiarity with the subject, which is at best a conflict of interest. It also suggests an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is prohibited. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Linking Wikipedia:Help_desk#CJ_Hopkins. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What parts of this page fail to present "a neutral point of view" or suggest "an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion"? If none, remove warning tag. Königubu (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO it's not glaring as the article looks now. Possibly the Zone 23 sentence which should have a good secondary source or be removed, and "His writings have appeared in ColdType, The Unz Review, OffGuardian, CounterPunch and other publications." which seems pretty uninteresting (and unreffed) but could also be "saved" with a good secondary source. And thank you for not removing the tag yourself, that would be improper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Grayfell since you added the thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions: (1) remove "Zone 23" sentence from "Later works" ... leave it listed under "Novels" with the ISBN (2) also remove "teaches workshops" sentence. It is not related to notability as author. (3) revise "writing has appeared" sentence to read "His political satire and commentary has appeared in ..." and use CounterPunch archive (https://www.counterpunch.org/author/cjhop0098/) and Unz archive (https://www.unz.com/author/c-j-hopkins/) as refs. Königubu (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you are going for bone dry, remove recently added sentence in lead, "Among his works are ..." Königubu (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I added that sentence, I think it's ok per WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the autobio tag I added, and have removed the novel and workshop lines, as these both seem like good suggestions. I have rephrased the book's entry in the bibliography to indicate the book is self-published. I am not doing to to be petty, I really do think this is significant and useful for readers who are researching this author, based on past experience. The imprint name Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant is the author's own, and it has apparently only been used for this book. Readers looking for this book, or looking for context about this book, are more likely to be confused by this detail than informed. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It is petty, and it reads as such. Your animosity towards Hopkins is made clear on the Identity Politics page. Unless you propose to add this note to every author who has ever published their own work, and band that has its own record label, and organization that publishes under its own imprint (and there are many), then it reads as an attempted insult, and makes Wikipedia look unprofessional, and biased. Königubu (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

We are pretty biased against selfpublished stuff, see WP:SELFPUBLISH, it's not a Hopkins thing. When his book has coverage like The Joy of Cooking or Fifty Shades of Grey we'll happily have an article about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This book is not supported by any reliable sources. Whether or not to include self-published books in bibliographies is often disputed, because they are not obviously noteworthy. As for this edit summary, Marcel Proust, Mark Twain and William Blake are no-longer self-published. Further, their works are discussed by countless reliable, independent sources. If you know of such sources for Hopkins, let's see them.

Further, if you know of any articles about self-published creators which lack sources, please let me know so I can have a look at them. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, do you have any source on year of birth or full name? Selfpublished may be good enough here, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Grayfell, there are many examples on Wikipedia of authors publishing under their own imprints. For example, Jeffrey St. Clair, who runs CounterPunch, which also publishes his books, which you do not tag as "self-published." Here's the list on his Wikipedia page:

collapsed for space

Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press (1998) (with Alexander Cockburn) ISBN 978-1-85984-258-4 A Field Guide to Environmental Bad Guys (1999) (with James Ridgeway) ISBN 978-1-56025-153-8 Five Days That Shook The World: The Battle for Seattle and Beyond (2000) (with Alexander Cockburn) ISBN 978-1-85984-779-4 Al Gore: A User's Manual (2000) (with Alexander Cockburn) ISBN 978-1-85984-803-6 The Politics of Anti-Semitism (2003) (co-editor with Alexander Cockburn) Been Brown So Long, It Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature (2003) ISBN 978-1-56751-258-8 Serpents in the Garden: Liaisons with Culture and Sex (2004) (co-editor with Alexander Cockburn) ISBN 978-1-902593-94-4 Grand Theft Pentagon :Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror (2005) ISBN 978-1-56751-336-3 Born Under a Bad Sky: Notes from the Dark Side of the Earth (2007) ISBN 978-1-904859-70-3 Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland (2008) (Co-editor with Joshua Frank) ISBN 978-1-56025-153-8 Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (2013) (Co-editor with Joshua Frank) ISBN 978-1849351102 Killing Travons: An Anthology of American Violence (2014) (Co-editor with Kevin Alexander Gray and JoAnn Wypijewski) ISBN 978-0-69221-399-5 Bernie and the Sandernistas: Field Notes From a Failed Revolution (2016) CreateSpace, ISBN 1-539-032-728

St. Clair's uses the "CounterPunch" imprint as Hopkins uses the "Snoggsworthy" imprint (as the Penguin Group uses the "Viking" imprint). Both St. Clair and Hopkins are established authors, whose works have been published by other publishers (as was Alexander Cockburn, whose books published under the "CounterPunch" imprint you also do not tag as self published). And rightfully so. An imprint is a trade name. Quoting from Wikipedia's "Imprint (trade name)" page ...

″A single publishing company may have multiple imprints, with the different imprints often used by the publisher to market works to different demographic consumer segments. For example, the objective of Viking—an imprint of the Penguin Group—is "[t]o publish a strictly limited list of good nonfiction, such as biography, history and works on contemporary affairs, and distinguished fiction with some claim to permanent importance rather than ephemeral popular interest.″

St. Clair, Cockburn, and Hopkins are all established authors, whose works have been published by other publishers, and who are entitled to use their own imprints without them being labelled "self-published," just as the Penguin Group is.

Again, it is clear to anyone who reads this talk page, and reads the Identity Politics talk page, that you, Grayfell, are too biased to be editing this page. That said, it's your platform. If Hopkins' novel is "not noteworthy" according to official Wikipedia policy, you and Gråbergs Gråa Sång should remove all references to it from the page, rather than playing games.Königubu (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because certain Wikipedia pages are written one way, it doesn't mean another gets to ignore policy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read what I wrote and address the points it makes, or admit that there is no "policy", other than whatever an editor feels like doing. Kind regards, Königubu (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if you're honestly just looking for a citation that isn't a reader review or a book blogger, there is a review here ... http://www.unz.com/kbarrett/civil-war-ii-coming/ and there should be one in Naked Capitalism relatively soon. Königubu (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The example Königubu provides is Jeffrey St. Clair, which is already tagged for source issues, and has been for over ten years. I have worked on the publisher info for that article to indicate publishers. For reference, Unz Review lacks a positive reputation for editorial oversight or fact-checking, so it is not a reliable, independent source. Sources like this are poor for establishing the significance of specific details. In this case, I don't think this really needs anything beyond a primary source (such as the ISBN number), since it is not an extraordinary claim that the book exists and was written by Hopkins. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Per [1] and Ron_Unz#The_Unz_Review_and_other_activities, I don't think citing Unz is a good idea. Got any Publishers Weekly? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Title and ISBN alone would be fine. The issue is the "self-published" parenthetical you added. The question is simple. Either Hopkins' novel is "notable" enough to be listed under its proper imprint (like any other novel), without the condescending "self-published" parenthetical, or it is not. If it is not "notable", because it is "self-published", then it should be completely removed from the page, along with references to Hopkins as a "novelist". Please do one or the other. Königubu (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

WP-terminology: WP:NOTABLE is about if we should have an article or not. WP:DUE, WP:PROPORTION etc is about should a specific thing be mentioned in the article and how much. Please also take a look at WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

We are not interested in arguing over your terms. We just want to resolve this. The above argument stands. Either the novel is worthy of being listed under its legal imprint, without the condescending parenthetical, or it should be removed entirely. Please address this, make a decision, and do one or the other, so that we can move on. Königubu (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Who are "we"? Hoping for things to be "resolved" on WP may not pan out, it's a very changing place. IMO, the current inclusion of the book is ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please address the question. Why is the condescending parenthetical "ok" in your opinion? I have presented a clear explanation of why it is not, which you have not addressed. "We" are obviously "connected to the subject" (which is why we stopped editing the page, once we learned that was not allowed). Again, we are not interested in arguing. We simply expect Wikipedia to represent Hopkins and his work in a neutral, unbiased way. Königubu (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

- Königubu - the reason why they asked who are "we", is because Wikipedia accounts are to be run and actioned by one person. A group of people running an account is against our policies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't consider "self published" condescending, I think it's relevant info for a WP-reader. If consensus is for removing it, that's ok too, WP will survive either outcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please consider the fact that, to people in the publishing trade, it is very condescending. It suggests that the author is an amateur or hobbyist. Hopkins is clearly not. When an established author chooses to publish a book under his own imprint, he is entitled to have that book listed under that imprint. This is why every bookseller, library, distributor, and professional catalog (e.g. Worldcat) lists Zone 23 under its imprint. If Wikipedia chooses to be the one exception, you have the power to do that, but your motives will be clear. That would be a shame, because you have improved the rest of the page significantly. Königubu (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that POV, if I was an author I would probably share it. Mine is that CJ Hopkins, who I learned existed yesterday day before yesterday, is an afaaict WP:NOTABLE person with several lauded plays under his belt. He also selfpublished a novel a couple of years ago. This fact, while (a little) interesting, does not by its inclusion make this article insinuate that CJ Hopkins is amateur or hobbyist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for grasping the idea of indenting so quickliy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand your POV as well. My argument is that your personal POV contradicts standard professional publishing industry practice, which recognizes and represents private imprints no differently than corporate imprints, and lists and catalogs books accordingly. Surely you are not arguing that your POV overrides the POV and standard practices of the global professional publishing industry? Königubu (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My POV no, I'm one editor. WP:CONSENSUS (whatever that turns out to be) in the context of a WP-article, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's place to cast aspersions, but instead to state verifiable facts. It's not our problem that this person chose to publish using a method that has a poor reputation. When one makes a choice, one surely has done due diligence and is definitely not immune to the consequence and image it might create in others' minds. It's not our place to hide facts, with a seeming goal of polishing the image of the author despite this choice. Does it does possibly speak to the reputation of this person in the eyes of publishers or others? Maybe...that sort of expert-opinion (or indirect evidence of it) is definitely of encyclopediac value. If the book becomes a success, that obviously would override any concerns about how it was published at that point. But we haven't reached that point. However, I also agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång that one self-published item among multiple notable items does not seem like a black mark on this person overall. Everyone I know who has a doctorate wrote a thesis that was published by their own school and nobody thinks ill of them for that. And it's standard fare in some fields of study to include a statement that "this work is being published as part of a requirement for a degree" in journals...it's honest, and it does leave the door open for readers to think how they wish of its quality. DMacks (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You are indeed casting aspersions and exhibiting your bias. An established author publishing under his own imprint does not have a "bad reputation". Being an amateur or a hobbyist does. Nor is publishing under one's own imprint "hiding facts." See Hopkins' Consent Factory (https://consentfactory.org/consent-factory-publishing/). Nothing is hidden. Rationalize and deflect all you want, but Wikipedia will now be the only source that deems it necessary to add a condescending "self-published" tag to a book that is listed everywhere in the publishing industry under its legal imprint, which is standard professional practice. Given that fact, it is obvious the only reason you insist on doing this is bias and hostility toward the subject. Do what you want, it's your platform, but if you honestly want to be neutral, I suggest that you have an objective WP editor who understands the publishing industry (and the difference between an established author and doctoral candidate) review this talk and the page for bias. Königubu (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As if we needed another demonstration of WP editors' bias, after Grayfell asked for an example of other authors published under their own imprints who are not tagged as "self-published", and after I provided Grayfell with Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn as examples, Grayfell edited St. Clair's bibliography, preserving his "CounterPunch" imprint, and not adding a condescending "self-published" tag. So apparently WP editors feel it is "interesting" for readers to form the impression that Hopkins "self-published" his novel, but that authors such as St. Clair did not "self-publish" their books, even though both Hopkins and St. Clair have published under their own imprints, in exactly the same way? The notion that this is "neutral" and "unbiased" is a joke. Königubu (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, Grayfell started this purportedly because he was concerned about WP:PEACOCK phrases. Have a look at the Young Jean Lee or Caden Manson articles (also experimental theatre artists) for comparison. If Grayfell was honestly concerned about WP Peacock "policy" and not just editing the Hopkins page out of spite (see the Identity Politics talk page, where someone apparently annoyed Grayfell by trying to insert a quote from Hopkins, prompting Grayfell to visit the Hopkins article, and start "editing" it for "neutrality"), then he would probably want to rush over to those pages and edit the hell out of them, wouldn't he? But, please, do keep explaining WP "policy" and "neutrality" to me, and anyone who reads this talk page. Königubu (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Amazing ... a bit of research has revealed that Grayfell is apparently quite invested in the "neutral" WP presentation of Antifa (which Hopkins has repeatedly satirized in some of those publications WP deems "unreliable"). The obnoxious Breitbart even documented his activities in a couple of articles (which apparently I am unable to link to because WP has "blacklisted" it). And yet, Grayfell is allowed to edit Hopkins' page, and is not included in the "conflict of interest" warning box displayed at the top, despite his conflict of interest. Is there no one objective at WP who actually monitors this sort of thing? Königubu (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Have to admit, it's impressive watching you guys go after a subject's page. Now you've erased the Australia and Netherlands touring of Horse Country. Here are your Australia citations. (1) the award ... http://fringevault.com.au/mini_sites/awards/2004 (2) a review ... http://theatreguide.tripod.com/htm_events/reviews_fringe_2004.htm ... (3) the local touring org ... https://www.artsprojects.com.au/tours/clancy-productions-horse-country. The Netherlands date was The Noorderzon Festival. Please do keep attempting to misrepresent this subject and his work. It makes you look extremely neutral and non-biased. Königubu (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the only Netherlands citation we could find, Hopkins' play, Horse Country, but mistakenly listed under director's name. (https://8weekly.nl/special/theater-specials/dagelijks-verslag-noorderzon-festival-noorderzon-verblindt/) Königubu (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are citations for your "His writings have appeared ..." sentence, which should read "His political satire and commentary has appeared ...", which is what it is. OpEd News (https://www.opednews.com/author/author513589.html); ZNet (https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-war-on-dissent/); Tlaxcala (http://www.tlaxcala-int.org/biographie.asp?ref_aut=5167&lg_pp=pt); ZeroHedge (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-04/future-spectacle-or-how-west-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-reality-police?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed). Königubu (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the OffGuardian archive, though you probably deem it a "fake news" online magazine ... (https://off-guardian.org/tag/consent-factory/) Königubu (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would, not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thought so. Here's one from Agora Vox, which as its WP-article explains, is a French citizen journalism outlet with over 40,000 volunteers editors ... gosh, that structure sounds familiar. (https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/la-fabrique-de-la-normalite-187499?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+agoravox%2FgEOF+%28AgoraVox+-+le+journal+citoyen%29) Königubu (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

And here's one from Black Agenda Report, although something tells me WP editors don't find it "reliable" either (https://blackagendareport.com/war-dissent)Königubu (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's one in French translation from "The Voltaire Network (French: Réseau Voltaire),a Lebanon-based alternative media outlet", according to its WP article. Not reliable? (https://reseauinternational.net/le-charme-indiscret-des-gilets-jaunes/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Königubu (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Königubu (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest: Philip Cross

So the infamous "Philip Cross" has begun "editing" this page now, despite his blatant conflict of interest. It appears this "editing" is being done in direct response to a recent piece by Hopkins specifically referencing the "Philip Cross" controversy. (https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/11/the-ministry-of-wiki-truth/).

WP admins, please do feel free to pretend to explain why this is allowed.

Also, since "Mr Cross" is being so thorough about everything, here's another production of screwmachine/eyecandy, in Atlanta, GA, and a review for the citation. (https://creativeloafing.com/content-181088-theater-review---screwmachine-eyecandy-at-pushpush).

"Mr Cross" should feel free to use quotes from the review, that is, if they are not too positive. Königubu (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Found yet another production, in San Francisco (https://www.sfchronicle.com/performance/article/A-case-for-the-Fringe-Festival-as-central-12192223.php). It's a bad review, so "Mr Cross" will definitely want to quote this one ... unless that would force him to quote the good Time Out New York review that he has carefully buried in the footnotes. Königubu (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

How does Philip Cross have a WP:COI here? (If you talk about a wikipedia user, you should ping them, it's simple good manners). Everything in the edits that I saw seem pretty neutral, perhaps you could explain. This is not the location for reporting particular users for their editing, nor for reporting any potential COI (which would be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, but I don't think they would use the above off-wiki as any sort of proof.) I'd love to be able to help the article be written better, but I don't think complaining about the situation off-wiki helps the situation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I explained "Mr Cross"'s COI clearly in the first paragraph above.Königubu (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday, I added positive reviews about Hopkins' plays (except for the article cited to Variety), and did not add the negative comments they contain because those refer to aspects of the production which are transient, unlike the play text. All of my citations were among the first google results for these works, usually the best reliable sources available. In his original piece, Hopkins admits to having one editor keeping a watch on this article who thus has a strong COI as he has a direct connection with the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, hello, "Mr Cross", pleased to meet you. Yes, I believe I confessed to having "a connection with the subject" after I was alerted by WP admins about this (and a big yellow warning box was displayed at the top of this page). This is why I immediately ceased editing the page, and am now acting strictly as a liaison, unlike, for example, you, who immediately commenced "editing" the page after Hopkins posted his recent piece referencing your past controversial activities. That said, I am sure Mr Hopkins appreciates your sudden, completely objective interest in the details of his career. Please do carry on. Kindest regards, Königubu (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you so much, "Mr Cross", for the helpful message you sent warning me about conflict of interest, including a list of dos and donts. Just for the record, point by point: (1) avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;(I did not create the page, and I ceased adding factual information to it when I was advised to do so. (2) propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template); (That is exactly what I am doing now) (3) disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI); (I have done so) (4) avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam); (I have not done so)(5) do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. (I am doing so). Shall I go back and add a request edit template to all the citations I have provided above, which WP "editors" have ignored? And if you have any other advice, fire away. I'm new to all this WP-speak and these rules, so this was very helpful. Thanks again, and all best wishes,Königubu (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that's a bit indelicate to edit the article on some author who has written about you. Philip Cross, please stop: there is no urgency to edit this article (or to have it at all, perhaps). Nemo 21:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross edited the article first, then Hopkins wrote about him, or did I get that wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Philip Cross suddenly became interested and began editing a few hours after Hopkins's piece was published, as I clearly explained above.Königubu (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Königubu: as you seem to be ignoring your talk page, please note that you have not complied with WP:PAID and may be blocked if you do not. Also note that being attacked by someone doesn't automatically mean they have a conflict of interest - if you wish to pursue this line of argument I suggest you do it at WP:COIN. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. If there was some appearance of vindictiveness, it might raise some issues, but I haven't seen Philip Cross make any changes that I can really take issue with. We shouldn't incentivize off-site abuse by discouraging people from reasonable editing just because someone wrote a diatribe about them. Nblund ^talk 15:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I was not "pursuing a line of argument". I was simply correcting Gråbergs misrepresentation of the facts. I have no interest in filling out your forms. I've made my "connection to the subject" clear, several times now, and have ceased adding factual information to the subject's page, as you requested. But go ahead and ban me if you want to prevent me from correcting misrepresentations of facts related to the subject on this talk page.Königubu (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the first comment on Mr Hopkins's article at The Unz Review was posted November 5, 2019 at 15:47 GMT. Philip Cross began editing at 17:34 UTC. Once again, I would request that WP assign objective admins to this article or at least attempt to represent the facts related to this subject accurately. Königubu (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

CJ Hopkins Exposes The Ministry Of Wiki-Truth

And we're in the blogosphere (Zero Hedge). I guess we could add it as an EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Zero Hedge. It is a self-published blog. Philip Cross (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but EL are not necessarily generally RS. Could be considered per WP:ELMAYBE #4. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No, why should we give him publicity? And although I don't care for his pathetic comments about my userbox, his attacks on other editors shouldn't be given publicity, especially as they can't rebut them. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The article has now appeared in other sources as well as ZH. Yes we should add it as an external link. It isn't being used as a source for any statement and point 4 of ELMAYBE seems relevant. It is funny and I think readers will appreciate it. Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry it seems the editors mentioned in the article would prefer it not be added as a link. I generally don't agree with censoring information but in this case I would accept their veto on including it. However, isn't there a part of wikipedia that keeps a record of articles written about it? Burrobert (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Sometimes we link to external coverage in talk page headers, but this is just invective directed at editors. We should refrain from feeding the trolls. Nblund ^talk 15:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It could also be considered a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The rant is funny to read but doesn't say much about the subject, so it's not relevant as an external link. It's also scarcely connected to reality given it starts from the assumption that the entire article has been turned upside down while in reality it changed little apart from some trimming of the non-content sections and some addition of sources to existing sentences. The body of the article was largely confirmed. Nemo 21:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)