User talk:Steeletrap

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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No sweat. Have a

Srich32977 has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

while you contemplate. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

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:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Other articles

Thought I'd start a new section to respond to the various other articles you raised concerns about:

On Robert P. Murphy - I've removed the reference to "pro-white". The claim is certain true (about the station, and can be sourced) but does it really add anything to a biography of a living person other than to (without a lot of context) quasi-suggest the subject is a neo-nazi? He might have been featured as a "devil's advocate" style guest or simply as a guest on ecomonic issues not related to race. Unless there is strong evidence (and I mean very strong) that he is featured on that station for his views on race, I don't think the added "pro-white" comment is necessary. Anyone interested will be able to click through to the article about that radio station and work out what it's about. They will draw their own conclusions, but it's not our place to draw those sorts of conclusions for them (again, unless with very strong sources). I hope that all makes sense.

• I think yours is a a fair assessment and I agree with your removal of "pro-white." (To be fair to me, I didn't say that they were racists in this and any piece, although I am utterly convinced that the organization is a racist one.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• No worries. And yeah, I understood what you were saying. Stalwart111 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On Mises Institute people - I know you have a particular issue with Mises people (which is fine) but you need to be careful of bias (perceived or actual). The fact that four Mises scholars have appeared on a show like that doesn't mean that all Mises people are racist, or that even the show considers them consistently racist enough to feature them. These are libertarians, after all, who are advocates for free speech. They would likely defend organisations like that even if they disagreed with their philosophies on race. Yeah? So highlighting "facts" like that, while true, doesn't add much without secondary sources that go into detail about why. If we had articles like "Racist Mises scholars clog pro-white airwaves" or something, then it would be a different story. The other thing is that we're talking about 4 guests of a radio station that might have 20-30 guests a week (potentially, I don't know). I'm sure Mises scholars aren't the only people who have appeared as guests. Hell, they're probably not even the only libertarian economists who have appeared, given the likely target market. Just be careful about adding 2 and 2 and getting 145.

• The bigotry of (at least some) Mises Institute people is pretty well sourced. Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell, for example, was listed as "editor" and reported by numerous credible third-party sources as the author of newsletter that called black people animals (who, as a group, are 95% criminals) and said that homosexuals suffering from AIDS "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick"; Tom DiLorenzo openly identifies with the anti-"miscegenation" slavery-apologists at the League of the South; Gary North wants to stone gays to death; Hoppe refers to blacks as "negroids" and wants to "physically remove .... advocates of homosexuality" from society; and the Institute openly endorses "confederate ideology." I am not inclined to think that multiple appearance on a Neo-Nazi radio show (which has a very small guest list, at least according to their website) is benign (though I am happy to delete the "pro-white" qualifier and let readers judge for themselves), given this background. But in any case, the Wikipedia articles on the above-mentioned figures either gloss over or altogether ignore these issues. Though I should strive to make my edits more fair and in accordance with the rules, I think you'd agree that these claims -- if sourced by credible third parties (which they are) -- should be presented (in the right form) on the biographies of these thinkers. I will work hard to try to present these facts in as plain and even-handed a manner as possible. Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think what is "well sourced" are the claims and comments of various Mises people, rather than any responses to those claims, if that makes sense. They have said stuff and our personal interpretation (upon reading those things) is that collectively they represent a fringe view. But while their comments might be widely disseminated and thus well-sourced, responses to those comments seem few and far between and it's those comments we need (the secondary sources) to build our articles. If our articles ignore their views it may well be because the wider community has ignored their views and that few people have bothered to formally respond to them or comment on their opinions in a manner we could then cite as a reliable source. Having now spent some time looking through the various related articles, it would seem the whole "Mises related" section is a bit of a walled garden. Stalwart111 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On economists in general - The reality is that I could call myself a economist or an economics scholar, even if I don't have an economics degree. The question is how credible that claim is. The fact is that Gary North (and people like him, but him in particular) has written books on economics that have been published (from what I can tell) by mainstream publishers. He was accepted as a fellow of the Mises Institute - an institute for economists. If other economists consider him an economist (at least, of sorts) then he's an economist. Arguing about it (based on our own original research or opinions) would be fairly pointless.

• On the economist issue: that seems fair enough! Consensus should, I think, be upheld if the situation is ambiguous (and the claim that he's not an economist is somewhat subjective). However, what do you think of mentioning the fact that North -- in a clear cut fashion in quotations like , as sourced by numerous credible third parties -- advocates stoning unruly children and homosexuals to death? It seems odd to leave that out in a biography of his thought. Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose my take would be that it's not a "biography of his thought" but rather a regurgitation of what reliable sources have said about the fellow. As above, in many cases, reliable sources may not have thought to spend enough time thinking about him to offer a considered critique of his philosophies. Stalwart111 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope that all makes sense. I'm in a bit of a rush but I'll add some more notes later maybe. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)