User talk:Poppenheimer

In response to your feedback

I am quite sure you can edit it, see above on the right under "contributions" and you are not blocked. Response from Paul Oppenheimer: Machiavelli is blocked. I cannot list my new biography: Paul Oppenheimer. Machiavelli: A Life Beyond Ideology (Continuum, 2011).Poppenheimer (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Poppenheimer (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lectonar (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that in each of the cases in which I have attempted unsuccessfully to get my own books listed, your pages seem heavily biased in favor of obsolete or irrelevant points of view, or definite "conflicts of interest." My book on the sonnet, for instance, The Birth of the Modern Mind: Self, Conflict and the Invention of the Sonnet (OUP, 1989) flies in the face of ideas advanced by Kleinhenz and other scholars, and so is regarded as in violation of Wikepedia's "conflict of interest" policy. My translation of Till Eulenspiegel advances new (and widely widely accepted) discoveries about Eulenspiegel, which remain unacknowledged in the peculiar article about him (this despite a quite favorable review in The New Yorker). My biography of Peter Paul Rubens does the same, as does my new biography of Machiavelli. In truth, all articles about anything are in some sense in "conflicts of interest" about something: such conflicts are unavoidable. What ought to be aimed at is some sense of balance, or the acceptance of rival viewpoints. All of my books (see above) are published by important publishers (Oxford University Press, Madison Books, Cooper Square Press, Continuum, Wesleyan University Press, New York University Press). All have been favorably reviewed in significant journals and newspapers (the TLS, for instance). Whoever is writing your articles is simply not in the know in these areas, which presents a real problem here. I would appreciate some response to these points--some indication why it is that reputable and acceptable new scholarship cannot make its way into your pages.--Paul OppenheimerPoppenheimer (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to find a possible acceptance of your rival viewpoints you'll have to expose them somehow. Conflicts of interest are unavoidable on a distance, certainly. However the purpose of the encyclopedia is not that they will take its content for its fertile grounds. What you'll be writing will be reviewed here too; and conflicts of interest at the level of the encyclopedia must be solvable by the encyclopedia . Try to follow MrOllie's advice; if you feel that such task is not yours then that task is not yours. "Acceptable new scholarship" is a conceit not undefined on Wikipedia: see WP:Scholarship; however note that a source is intended to give support to the article, not the opposite. --Askedonty (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I was expecting was a bibliographical listing, as is given to others. Is that too much to ask? I get the feeling that all I've said so far (see my memoranda above) is simply being ignored.72.227.155.238 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, there may be not a complete consensus amongst reviewers as to how adequately establish that listing, today. Take for example that quite agreable, and well written book "The Birth of the Modern Mind: Self, Consciousness, and the Invention of the Sonnet". Christopher Kleinhentz UW, Madison, in

Speculum, Volume 68, January 1993, writes: "Oppenheimer should read his sources more carefully and conduct a bit more rigourous bibliographical search. His statement that: No research done since 1915 has revealed an alternate source of the sestet, nor has anyone challenged Wilkin's opinion, (pp171-72) is both true and false (..) a great pity that such a disappointing book ...", etc. You must understand that the weight of the opinion of Christopher Kleinhentz, to begin with, and any other, has to be evaluated before the community can take a decision to that object. --Askedonty (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, Poppenheimer. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]