Talk:American Nazi Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Deletion of pending edit requests[edit]

Why were the two unaddressed edit requests deleted before these massive revisions were done on 5/8/2017? The revisions still include the incorrect information the pending edit requests were supposed to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30d2:40d0:2839:b635:775c:f019 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2018‎ (UTC)

The requests were both turned down -- do not request the same thing again. A repeated request without the required reliable sources needed to support it will be turned down again. Please sign your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No evidence was provided as to why TRAC is not a trustworthy source. I think if you are going to accuse them of not being reliable, you should provide evidence of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You've got it totally backwards. It is not the case that any specific source is considered to be a WP:Reliable source unless it is proved otherwise. Instead, a disputed or unknown source is considered to be unreliable unless evidence is presented showing that they fulfill the requirements of RS - which you should read. The evaluation of the TRAC citation provided was that it was "short and sketchy", and I concur with that - it's essentially a short entry in a catalog. Besides, I don't believe a single source would be sufficient to make the change asked for, more support will be required. And you're still not signing your posts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at their "Press Room", TRAC appears to be basically a one- or two-person operation. Their principals wrote an article about why the Las Vegas shooting incident was probably related to ISIS. They are most definitely not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I dont have an account on this site because of incidents like this. When sources contradict, the contradiction should be resolved before publication. Wikipedia is a living, breathing, work of knowledge. As a compendium of knowledge, associating a name, even an alias, with information, is unnecessary. My posts are logged by my IP address for identification. You are just going to have to deal with it as Wikipedia does not require an account to participate in discussion nor to propose edits. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, then please, take it up with the administration and not other users.
Moving on, the Encyclopedia of White Power is edited by a single individual, based of the works of many. TRAC has two editors, who publish the research works of many. These sources are equivocally the same in scope and function and one is trustworthy and the other is not....because you "think" it looks "short & sketchy" and disagree with some of their past publications.
The source you are relying on does not cite where it received the information claiming that the name was changed in 1966, so which one of the pieces of "further reading" is Kaplan referring to for that information?
As there are now contradicting sources, should we not dive in to the "further reading" listed in the Encyclopedia of White Power to determine if we can resolve the issue? Should we not contact the editors of TRAC and as them to provide their source for their claim? Would that not be the most intellectually honest way to resolve this discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Now, in conclusion, here is actual solid, proof you can cite.
That's an FBI memo about a Secret Army Organization and the appendix section discusses the ANP and NSWPP in detail. The FBI notes "On January 1st, 1967, the official name of this organization was changed to the National Socialist White People's Party."
In this case, the body of evidence now clearly points in one direction over the other. While I am not sad that I was wrong, I am sad that the responses I received were dismissive and opinionated. I am glad however, that now we all have an actual document to attribute this information to. With that being said, I will make an edit request to add the FBI memo as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I am actually really, really glad we looked in to this more as both the Encyclopedia of White Power and TRAC were wrong about this.
Please learn how to properly format comments, and please sign your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Im new here and there are no instructions on the page where you make these edits discussing the formatting. It requests that you sign, but allows unsigned comments. Again, do not begrudge users who do not follow convention. If the convention is so important, make it a policy and prohibit comments that omit it. Maybe instead, you could just be happy that I properly formatted and signed this comment? (After 4 edits)
Since the validity of the FBI memo as a source is now being called in to question, I would like to ask you to help me understand why a report by an investigatory agency of the United States Federal Government cannot be used for a citation, while a compilation of sources, edited by a single individual can be used and usurps the credibility of the FBI memo when conflicting information is found between them. In other words, what happens when the Secondary Source contradicts the Primary Source? Either the FBI is wrong or Kaplan is.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I am unaware of anything that "allows unsigned comments". All talk page comments should be signed. Simply add 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) to the end of your comment and it will be automatically signed by the system with your IP numbers and a date/time stamp.
The convention concerning responses to previous comments is to add one additional tab at the beginning of your comment. To do this, just add another colon {i.e. :}, so if you respond to a comment which begins with 2 colons, your response should start with 3.
The problem with the FBI report is that it is a primary source - please read the information at that link. Primary sources are acceptable under certain circumstances, but I don't believe this is one of them. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and is intended to be based on reliable (read that as well) secondary sources. If the FBI report was read and commented on by a subject expert in a book or article, the comment by the expert would be usable, because we're relying on their expertise to validate the information. As it is, what you've presented is essentially raw data, unprocessed, unfiltered, and unevaluated. It was possibly the best information that was available at the time, but a lot of research has happened since then, so it's hardly the best possible source to use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, then what source exactly was Kaplan referring to? Since there is a contradiction, the most responsible thing to do would be to find which source Kaplan relied on to make his determination. What you mention is a possibility. It's also a possibility that the FBI, who had a classified investigation of the organization ongoing, supplemented by confidential informants, got it right. Can we find the source for Kaplan's claim or do we just have to take him at his word? This would actually be a revision back since this page used to state the date of the name change as January 1, 1967 but after the merge, it was changed to 1966 based on the Encyclopedia of White Power2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No, you're not understanding. Kaplan is a secondary source, so it is automatically preferred over a primary source. If there's a contradiction, then the secondary source prevails. I don't have the Kaplan book, but (judging solely by its title as an "Encyclopedia") it's unlikely to have extensive footnoting, but even if it did, we don't evaluate which of two equally valid underlying sources to use, that would be violating our policy against original research. Instead we would report both -- but that's if they are equal in value. In any case, we don;t have Kaplan's source, so we have to deaql with what we do have. The FBI report, as a primary source, is inferior for our purposes to the secondary source (Kaplan), and the TRAC report is simply outright unreliable, the equivalent of a blog (see WP:Self-published sources). That leave Kaplan as the source to be relied on unless something more compelling comes along. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The Kaplan book in question can be previewed here:
If you read page 3, you will find where the 1966 date is mentioned, but there really isint information about where that date comes from. At the bottom of the page, he lists 7 different books that are "further reading". I just want to know if I have to go read all 7 looking for where he got his information or if we can try to dig down further and find it elsewhere. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You're still not getting it, and I believe that is deliberate on your part, but I'll try one more time and that's it, I'm all out of AGF.
Kaplan is a secondary source. The FBI report is a primary source. Secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, therefore Kaplan is preferred over the FBI report. That's the bottom line. You can do whatever you want -- what I'm going to do is turn down your request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
And look here:
His own book has conflicting dates on this matter, depending on which page of the book you are reading. On page 3, its 1966. On page 423, its January 1, 1967. On page 174, it says it was renamed by Koehl, after Rockwell's assassination. So which is it? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Nope, you've blown your credibility all to hell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You are being biased and attributing motive where there is none. Lets figure out why there are different dates given in Kaplan's own book. My credibility isint at question here, wikipedia's and kaplan's is. I work in a world where the data is considered accurate and the analysis is what is generally faulty, barring exceptions for bad coding or garbage inputs.This world, where the data is seen as secondary to the analysis, it is confusing. In my life, when contradictions in data arise, we look to resolve them so that accurate analysis can actually occur. Wikipedia seems more focused on the analysis of the raw data, even if the interpretation of the data or the data itself might be incorrect. Maybe that helps explain why I am having a little trouble understanding why raw data is being ignored in lieu of a secondary analysis 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not deal with analyzing raw data. It is verboten. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yea, I get that. I was explaining why Im having a hard time dealing with it, which you are interpreting as being disruptive and trolling, when that really is not my intention. Again, I believe you decided to attribute a motive to me that does not exist and I think that has biased you in favor of rejecting edits and further discussion on the topic. If you are not willing to at least review Kaplan's own book, then I can simply use Kaplans own book to make the edit, as we know its a reliable secondary source. It doesnt matter if the information is contradicted from page to page, as long as I pick the page that says what I want, right? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:Tendentious editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My last response was done admittedly, in jest, as obviously you have become to biased towards me to have an open and honest discussion without attribution of ill motive. Looking at that page though, you meet the qualifications of a problem editor. Specifically, having been blocked for a 3RR, not operating in good faith, attributing malice,and not giving me the benefit of the doubt. The only behavior I have engaged in, mentioned there, is failing to indent my discussion on the talk page for the beginning section of this conversation. Here is another quote from the page you just linked:: "Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute."2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Just to confirm what BMK has been saying without looking too in-depth at the sourcing: I would not consider a 1960s FBI memo to be a reliable source for anything other than what the memo itself said, and reporting on that may be giving undue weight to one primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Encyclopedias are generally tertiary sources, so when possible, we attempt to use the underlying secondary source, but this is not always possible. Wikipedia's value to the world is in that we do our absolute best to never be the first interpreter of primary sourcing. We are simply a summary of what reliable secondary sourcing has said on the subject. In many cases, when given the choice between reporting on something based on a primary source or a source of unknown reliability, and not reporting on anything, it is better to not report on anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If the FBI is a primary source, than so is the MSM. Let's use CNN for example. CNN employs journalists to engage in original thought and original research. CNN then publishes that information, making CNN a "secondary source", correct? Now, the FBI has a number of field analysts who gather data. That data is given to an analyst who writes a report. That report is then published by the FBI. How in this instance, is the FBI not a "secondary source". If the MSM and the FBI follow the same model, why is one called a secondary source and one called a primary source? Furthermore, the prior editor cites one article they found on TRAC as the basis for discrediting them as a source. If WP:OR is forbidden, is their interpretation of the TRAC posting not WP:OR? Should that editor not look for a secondary source discussing the accuracy and validity of TRAC? Any attempts to analyze data for purposes of source validity by myself got met by claims that my work was WP:OR. Basically what Im getting here is that Kaplan could come here in the talk page himself, admit he was wrong and you would still refuse to edit the passage by saying that now Kaplan has engaged in WP:OR and we must wait for a secondary source to analyze, editorialize, and publish discussion on how Kaplan said he was wrong. The accusations that TRAC "self-publishes" is not actually correct. You can go to their press room, and find the original research that they based their write up on for each article that is published. Most of the time, TRAC is just taking data found in news reports, analyzing it, and posting their findings. Just because it's done online like a large majority of MSM, its being called "self-published" by the prior editor2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
A historical news report from the 1970s would be a primary source, yes. One years later commenting on the facts and analyzing them would be secondary. Journalism can in various situations be either primary or secondary. An internal FBI memo, however, can only be primary.
You are correct that we would not put an edit in by someone claiming to be Kaplan (or even verified to be). If he decided to publish something that later contradicted his earlier stance or renounce it, we would use it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Here is a secondary source, Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun : Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity. New York :New York University Press, 2002. Print. APA [1]. On page 14, the author states: "On 1 January 1967 the party had been renamed to the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), and issues of fund-raising, propaganda writing, and membership recruitment were addressed at a party conference in June". Now, since we have two reliable secondary sources that present conflicting information, to be intellectually honest, we must include ALL views, including the view that the NSWPP was formed on Jaunary 1, 1967, not 1966. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
That does appear to be a reliable secondary source. Thank you for providing one. I'll let Beyond My Ken figure out how to best integrate it with the current sourcing and citation structure. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
At 265 scholarly citations, its more reliable than Kaplan who has 91 citations on his Encyclopedia of White Power. Is it not? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It is published by New York University Press, which is a respected academic publisher, so yes, it is a reliable source. I am not contesting that. I'm simply letting a person who is more familiar with the current formatting of the article to figure out how to best integrate it and make it so the prose is actually cited to the correct sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I think as evidenced by the conversation between BMK and myself, it would be best for another editor to step in at this point and make the determination and necessary edits. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
And he asked me to on my talk page, as I'm a neutral editor who has a halfway decent reputation for being calm. I'm agreeing with you that the source you provided above is a reliable secondary source published by a respected academic publisher. I prefer to let someone like him who is more familiar with the article make the needed changes. If he doesn't make them to your satisfaction, reach out to me on my talk page and I'll provide an opinion again. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
If his neutrality is in question, and you were his first choice, that doesnt necessarily make you a neutral party, it makes you his PREFERRED party. I was hoping the community of editors could recommend someone who has not been involved with this discussion, but is familiar with the article to step forward and make the edits. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I am unabashedly anti-Nazi if that is what you are referencing, but that doesn't make me non-neutral in terms of knowing Wikipedia's sourcing policies. I also tend to be willing to tell established editors when an IP is right more so than most, so if anything, you've got yourself someone who is more likely to take your side than some others he could have chosen. Anyway, the dispute is resolved other than your complaints about how unfair we are to non-reliable sourcing below. You've provided a reliable source. BMK can work with you to figure out how to integrate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No, your pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi views are not being referenced. You never stated a position so it would be impossible to discuss said position without attribution of motive, which would be disingenuous. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018[edit]

Remove sentence:
"In 1966, Rockwell renamed the ANP the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), a move that alienated some hard-line members."

Replace with:
"On January 1, 1967, Rockwell renamed the ANP to the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP), a move that alienated some hard-line members."[2] 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


  • You must provide a page number. This is a 1265 page document. There is no way anyone is going to read the whole damn thing to answer your edit request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This also a primary source and is probably not acceptable for use here. Other editors might like to weigh in on that after the IP provides the page number(s). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an unevaluated primary source, so I oppose changing the text and using it as a cited source. I'll leave it to other editors to either accept or reject the edit request, but I recommend against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will look forward to others reviewing the request. Perhaps you and I can discuss this further up in the talk section. I added my comments and questions there. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the tenor of the discussion above, I've changed my mind, and I will answer the request - others can override me if they disagree. The FBI report is an unevaluated primary source and is therefore not an acceptable source. Not done Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC
  • The editor has attributed ill motive to me and I believe is biased in favor of rejecting the edit. Please leave the edit open as you originally said you would and let another editor address it to avoid further accusations of bias. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not ever change an editor's comments unless it is covered by WP:TPO. Your request is denied. Another editor can override me if they think I've been hasty, but not you. You are a disruptive editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You may not re-open the request after it has been answered. Doing so again may lead to your being blocked from further editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For someone who has been blocked from editing for rule violations, you would know what a disruptive editor is no? I am allowed to re-open it as wikipedia doesnt stop me from doing it. "This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request." Stop being biased, stop lying, and stop being a disruptive editor, as evidence by your talk page. Furthermore, the status of a ticket is not your "comment". Its a status box and wikiedia says i can change it to re-open my request if i want. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia says no such thing. Those instructions are for the person answering the request - i.e. me -- and not for the person making the request -- you -- otherwise every rejected edit request would be locked into an endless round of opening and closing. You made a request, I was going to let others answer it, until I was persuaded that the request was not an improvement to the article because the source provided was primary. As I've said (at least twice) I don't mind other editors overriding me, but you as the person requesting the edit, cannot. I've asked an admin to look into this. If I've been hasty, I trust them to say so, and I'll accept that. In the meantime, don't change the status of the request. It has been answered -- that the answer is not one which you like is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably you should also read WP:No personal attacks. Accusing an editor operating in good faith of "lying", multiple times, is generally considered to be a personal attack. Were I you, I would stop while I'm still able to edit.
    Walking away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You are lying, wikipedia specifically asks if I want to re-open my request and tells me how to do it. I just showed you evidence of that. You said that was not the case. You said I edited your comments and I did not. Edit requests that are permanently closed are archived, no? It was my request and the message box says your request. What I mind, is you going back on your word and addressing this request even though you said you would not.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Having actually looked at this sourcing since a page number was provided and it was an actual request, I agree with BMK's Not done. We simply aren't competent to evaluate the accuracy of a 1970s internal US government memo. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • But you are competent enough to determine that TRAC is not a reliable source? To make that determination, you have to review data, analyze it, and make a determination. Is that not original research? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • No, they tell us themselves that they cannot be trusted as a reliable source: Hence, TRAC cannot and does not warrant the accuracy of its profiles. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Kaplan gives no warranty of the validity of his information. Why does TRAC have to meet this burden when others do not. The MSM gives no warranty for the information they provide either. It seems like an undue burden is being placed on this source and not other similar sources. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Kaplan is a tenured academic who published through a respected publisher that has an editorial control process. Mainstream journalistic publications have fact checkers and editorial oversight as well as a code of journalistic ethics that includes publishing corrections if information is falsely reported. The process allows us to assume these sources are reliable because there is editorial oversight and in the case of academics, peer review. A random website that accepts submissions from readers that it then publishes on its own with the disclaimer that it may or may not be accurate is quite different. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
            • TRAC also, like the MSM, says it will correct itself if proven wrong. There are editors who provide oversight, but since it's only two people, its been deemed insufficient. EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE has a disclaimer about incorrect information to absolve legal liability when using the content of others for purposes of editorializaiton and discussion. If I email the ADL and they say they cannot guarantee the validity of every piece of information on their website, will we disqualify them as a reliable source? Same goes for SPLC. This is from CNN's terms of use: "CNN is a distributor (and not a publisher or creator) of content supplied by third parties and users. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or content expressed or made available by third parties, including information providers or users of the Site, are those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of CNN. Neither CNN nor any third-party provider of information guarantees the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any content, nor its merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. (Refer to Section 6 below for the complete provisions governing limitation of liabilities and disclaimers of warranty.)" ( So does that mean that CNN is not a valid source because they wont warranty the validity of the information on their site? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────That comes through their section on third-party content. Third-party content published through CNN that is not subject to it's editorial oversight, such as op-eds, would not be reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the authors. You are correct. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for all the caps, Im just copying and pasting from their policies.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Re: CNN, no, that section was specifically dealing with third-party content that CNN distributes using it's platform. Not content that CNN publishes itself. Please do not take their words out of context. FWIW, in general, I do not like CNNs website as a source and think there are better ones.
      Re: the SPLC was cited three times here. The first two times are from its print publication that is simply reprinted electronically, so the disclaimer you are referencing wouldn't apply unless it is also contained in the original publication. The third time was an obit about the IRS foreclosing and forcing relocation. I've updated that information to be cited to Kaplan. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The second quote from CNN does not come from its Third Party Content section. Instead, it comes from the section titled "6. Disclaimer of Warranty; Limitation of Liability." available at the same link as provided earlier. I get that you take issue with the first section of their policy that I copied due to the section it was copied from. As the later quote was taken from a different section of the policy not dealing with specific third party content, its obviously relevant for the terms of this discussion. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
        • If you can't see the distinction between generic language on websites of a trusted content provider that can reference things other than what it is primarily distributing, and a disclaimer specifically aimed at the information being cited then there isn't anything I can say or do that will persuade you otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
          • And despite every single website refusing to warranty the accuracy of their content, I will never persuade you that you are placing an undue burden on TRAC by requiring that they warranty their information to be considered reliable. Their usage of the same legal terminology used by CNN and the SPLC is being used to discredit them. Any analysis you have done of TRAC is WP:OR and is not valid as you are not published and you are not a reliable source on these matters. You have no legal qualifications to make determinations about legal statements and nor do I. We must take the statements at face value since neither of us are qualified to dispute them. Any attempt to interpret their statements would be considered original research, would it not? On the flip side of this though, CNN published those terms, so they are the primary source for those terms, so they cant be used either. See the conundrum? If we want to discuss these terms and conditions, we must wait for someone who we can agree is a reliable source to analyze them and achieve publication from a reputable publishing house.2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Considering the source provided in the discussion above this one (Goodrick-Clarke), I have added an informational note which reports on the disputed date of the name change, and changed the text of the article accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
An existing citation for the book Ideas and Movements that Shaped America: From the Bill of Rights to "Occupy Wall Street" (3 vols.) by Green, Michael S. and Stabler, Scott L. (2015). Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 390. ISBN 978-1610692519. ISBN 1610692519. Retrieved May 12, 2016. also makes note of the 1967 date on page 390. Please add that to the reference note you made. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Where are we getting the other two names from the Kaplan book (Ryden & Noel)? Every publisher I can find lists Kaplan as the sole author/editor. Even the wikipedia page for the book lists Kaplan as the sole author. ( 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
He is the editor, but not the sole contributor. [1] I assume whoever added it as a source first formatted it that way for some reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, it is just odd to me that two (correction, one) contributor(s) have been picked out of a long list and cited by name along with Kaplan. Ryden is listed first in the "contributors" but I see no mention of Noel as a contributor at the link you provided. It is just an odd way to do the citation, yes? Maybe I am misunderstanding something here. I have purchased the Kaplan book in question so we should know more once it is delivered and all pages can be reviewed. I will look to see if we can find evidence of Noel somewhere that would justify citing him. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You caught us. It's all part of a vast conspiracy that you have now undermined. We'll all be leaving for North Korea immediately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You are obviously joking otherwise, you would be violating multiple rules as an editor. Your response is disingenuous and does not give me, a new user, the benefit of the doubt. I was never implying a conspiracy so unless you are joking, that is an unfair and unsubstantiated accusation and should be considered a personal attack. You cant explain why the citation is the way it is. I did not request for it to be changed, I was merely discussing it and made note that I will have an actual copy of the book and will try to see if we cant resolve the issue once it is in my possession. So how did you get to where you are based off what I said? 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
BMK, you know we get along, but the joke isn't helping the IP here, even though I do appreciate your frustration
IP: I would highly recommend that you create an account so that you can make non-controversial changes such as this yourself. The reason for the citation the way it is if I had to guess is that it was citing a specific chapter first and not the work as a whole. I didn't change it with my last update, because it could also be for the reasons BMK is suggesting.
From a behavioral standpoint, I can also get why BMK is frustrated: dealing with your complaints about the FBI memo and TRAC are very frustrating because we were giving clear explanations and you didn't seem to be understanding them (and I don't want to go back to that discussion.) As a piece of advice when working in fringe areas within Wikipedia: you will wear people's patience thin if you keep repeating "[Mainstream source everyone respects] is just like [unreliable source X]!" If someone had made a report to WP:ANI and WP:AE for pushing of unreliable sourcing on a controversial article and not listening to what you were being told, you could have ended up blocked. Thankfully we found a reliable source, so that is behind us. Also, like I said, I highly encourage you to get an account if you are going to edit in areas like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My apologies to all involved.
I have already changed the citation in the article to indicate that Kaplan is the editor, removing the other names, but if the IP receives the book and finds that the citation is from a specific entry written by the other names, then the citation can be re-written to indicate the name of the entry and the authors of it. If they haven't created an account and become auto-confirmed by then, the IP should feel free to report their findings here and I can adjust the citations again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Asperger's sucks man. People often cannot understand how I came to a train of thought and often, I take things literally, quite literally. It is hard for me to understand the concept of how two mutually exclusive things can be listed and discussed as fact. For me, those issues need to be clarified further. It would be a dream come true if I could use actual documentation found in the book I ordered to prove BMK's theory about why "they can both be right" ie, internal name change versus filing the paperwork at the end of the tax year. Then we could really expand this section with a rich wealth of additional knowledge. What also frustrated me is that the editors in question had not reviewed the sources with enough detail to identify the discrepancy themselves, as evidenced by the pre-existing citation that concurs with the new citation. The edit I requested could have been made without any actual citation being provided by me and simply requesting that you read the cited works already listed on the page. Instead of that happening, my disability was used against me to declare me a nuisance and a disruptive editor. For the last time, wikiedia does not require an account and until one is mandatory, I will not create one. The fact that getting an edit done without one is such a painful process should be laid bare for all to see. Stop bringing this up as an issue. You consistently address my behavior in your responses for all to see while never addressing the unsubstantiated allegations against me by other editors. Obviously neither of you could have known I was disabled so please, let me be clear, I am not implying any ill motive or intention on either of your parts in regard to that aspect of the discussion.
Regardless, I do now feel that I understand the different source models and the relationships between them. While there as some nuances I am still trying to wrap my head around, I can say my understanding of these topics has greatly improved. Thank you for sharing the information with me that you did and I am sorry that my disability has made the process difficult for both of you. If I can find references of Noel once I get the book, I will make the request as BMK asked. 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No one's saying that they're both "right", we're saying that we have two different sources which provide two different dates, so we don't choose between them, we report both. That's our function, as a tertiary source.
In point of fact, it's quite possible for both to be "true" -- and bear in mind that this is pure speculation on my part, and cannot go into the article. It's conceivable that an internal decision was made by the organization in 1966 to change its name, but that official papers -- such as for tax purposes -- weren't filed until January 1, 1967, a date that supports the idea that it's due to some bureaucratic paperwork. But we don't know that so we can't even suggest it in the article unless a reliable source says it. It may, however, help you to understand why two reliable sources could report different dates. Or, of course, one could just simply be wrong -- but, again, we don't know that, and it's not our place to choose between them, barring extraordinary circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
"no one's saying that they're both "right"". Actually, that's exactly what you said, "It's actually possible that both sources are right", right here: I was just trying to explain what was going on in my head to help your understand my train of thought and possibly dissuade you of the notion that I was being intentionally disruptive. I was not asking for the hypothesis you made in your post here, and on Tony's wall to be added to the article. Why you think and insinuate that I did ask for that, is beyond me. The phraseology of your reply makes it sound like I asked for that, when I clearly did not. I simply said it would be a dream come true if we could prove that from the source material and then use it to expand the section further. I was trying to explain to you that I am starting to understand, and you take it as an opportunity to hammer your points home again. Well done. Also, please stop picking a singular aspect of a multi-faceted response to respond to, while leaving the rest of my reply unaddressed 2602:306:30D2:40D0:2839:B635:775C:F019 (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Believe me, my anonymous friend, many of us here are on the spectrum somewhere in the Asperger's neighborhood; and we do understand something of your frustration. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think the current version is still sub-optimal, as "mid-1960s" implies a broader date range and "in 1966 or 1967" would be better. The wording of the footnote is fine. It's only a small semantic issue, though, so if others feel strongly about it the other way then I'll accept that. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point. I've altered the text accordingly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)