Talk:William Remington

Ruy Lopez addditions
Ruy Lopez: Any changes you make to any of these espionage articles will require proper sourcing, or they will be reverted. nobs 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverted and placed here pending sourcing
 * Remington sued Bentley for libel for her claims. Remington won the case - the jury foudn that Bentley had made false accusations and had libeled Remington, and he was awarded several thousand dollars.


 * The source is West's 88 Federal Supplement 166, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Remington vs. Bentley Ruy Lopez 04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) Source needs to attributed; (2) need time reference (obviously he didn't sue her after he was murdered in prison). When that is completed, I will take it on good faith that you have not hidden any appeals and subsequent decisions that may have occurred. nobs 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is attributed. The suit ended on February 28th, 1950.  And while looking that up I found more evidence of the flakiness of this flaky Vassar girl, thanks. Ruy Lopez 02:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not propose deleting this sentence; I am stating it somehow has pronouns mixed up as because Bentley is a woman and it seems to refer to her as "he" (or Bentley cannot speak for the knowledge "he" has). Let's try to make sense of this for inclusion. Thank you.
 * "Bentley falsely claimed that he did not know Bentley other than as a reporter for liberal publications."

nobs 17:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? This was only an attempt to make a few Dollars when in fact, as was found later, he was found guilty and even his own ex-wife stated that Remington was a communist. Some of you people get caught up in the most minor details and yet miss the big picture. This guy was a loyalty and security risk!! Jtpaladin 21:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

McCarthyism nonsense
Your source is incredibly POV. That statement is so POV that it is completely absurd. How can you use a highly left-wing POV that is making nothing but a ridiculous assertion? McCarthy had nothing to do Remington being convicted of his crimes or even having been murdered as a result of anything McCarthy had said. All of your sources come from one highly biased book. This is not scholarly work. This is like blaming Clinton for the death of Jeffrey Dahmer. This is also like saying that the spy, Jonathan Pollard is a victim of McCarthyism. Totally ridiculous. Not even the article on "McCarthyism" lists Remington as a victim even though Schrecker and her discredited book, "Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America" is used as a source. Drop this nonsense because it does not adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Jtpaladin 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your declaration that a source is "discredited" and doesn't qualify as a WP:Reliable source does not make it so. What you consider to be "ridiculous" is irrelevant. Your analogies are irrelevant. If you have a source that presents a contrary opinion, you are welcome to add it. RedSpruce 16:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Responding to request at 3O: I have read through the article, but I fail to see any tangible and direct connection between McCarthyism and Remington's death that would allow his death to be attributed to McCarthy or his policies. Of course, his circumstances could be attributed to the socio-political climate of the era – with which McCarthy obviously has an association – due to the manner in which he was pursued through hearings and trials until "justice" (in the view of the anti-Communist factions of the authorities) was seen to be done. But that does not properly constitute a direct causal relationship between McCarthy and the ending of Remington's life by two fellow inmates.

The article's revision history shows that the addition in question was poorly phrased in a way that allowed for a POV. Which is always to be avoided, of course, but even more so when the statement itself has weak foundations. It is perfectly possible for books to be biased (just read some of the books about the JFK conspiracy theories, for instance) and it seems to me that the book in question may be biased (or otherwise less than inscrutable) if it includes such obviously tenuous assertions.

Therefore I strongly recommend that you leave this statement out of the article.  Adrian  M. H.  17:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion and your recommendation. Of course it is possible for books and other sources to be biased. However, WP policy is that "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth," so the question is whether this is a valid source. No argument has been presented showing that it isn't. Since your argument doesn't address the issue of the source's validity, it isn't terribly relevant, but nevertheless I would like to point out that part of it is based on an incorrect assumption: that "McCarthyism" refers solely to things related to Joseph McCarthy himself. It doesn't, as a dictionary will tell you, so there is no requirement that there be a "direct causal relationship between McCarthy and the ending of Remington's life"
 * The article stated that this murder "has been cited as one of the few murders attributable to McCarthyism." This was a correct and inarguable statement of fact, drawn from a reliable source. If you think this statement should be left out of the article, I'd like to hear a valid reason why. I would also like some clarification of your opinion that the text was "poorly phrased in a way that allowed for a POV." RedSpruce 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not made an assumption that "McCarthyism refers solely to things related to Joseph McCarthy himself". How stupid do you think someone has to be to fail to fully comprehend the meaning of a widely used eponym? Making comments about dictionaries is unwarranted, and I consider that to be misjudged on your part. Since I have not made any such assumption, I suggest that you review your very inaccurate interpretation of my assessment. You do not have to quote a well known extract from a key policy to me, either. Your dispute is not about verifiability: it is about the debatable quality and potential bias of both the source and the statement. You have merely succeeded in verifying that one author made the assertion in question, without attempting to find a more appropriate way of presenting that assertion or reconsidering whether it would be more productive not to include it at all. I can see no evidence of any attempt to rephrase your edit to report the author's assertion in a more detached way, which is the least that you can do if you want to convince Jtpaladin that it should be included. You may have found other editors to be more amenable towards your contribution had you done that earlier, before resorting to 3O.  Adrian   M. H.  19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I didn't see any way to interpret your point about the lack of a "direct causal relationship between McCarthy and the ending of Remington's life" except as a misunderstanding of the word McCarthyism. Perhaps it was just a typo and you meant to write McCarthyism rather than McCarthy. This word is misunderstood by many, and I had to (try to) explain it to another editor just a few weeks ago. I don't think such a misunderstanding requires any great stupidity, but perhaps I'm wrong.
 * "You have merely succeeded in verifying that one author made the assertion in question" -- that's all I have to do, because that's all the article says. So I'm glad to hear I was successful.
 * "I can see no evidence of any attempt to rephrase your edit to report the author's assertion" That's because I made no such attempt. As far as I know and as far as anyone has pointed out, the statement in the article is completely reasonable and unbiased and has not been argued against by any reliable source.
 * RedSpruce 20:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would expect that most educated native English speakers (and probably the majority of non-English speakers) would (or should) have a broad (basic) understanding of McCarthyism and anti-Communist sentiment and activity of that era. The material that you added may not have been contended by any reliable source, but Jtpaladin removed your edit twice as far I can see, so he clearly has an issue with it, and that is what matters most and needs to be resolved either way. It's why you came to 3O, after all. That you made no attempt to revise your addition was precisely what I was highlighting, with the polite proviso that you might have made a revised attempt that I had missed. If you were to try an alternative tack, you might find that it is enough to prevent the edit war between the two of you from beginning again. A compromise, if successful, is generally better than the one-sided outcome that often results from edit wars when one party is the first to walk away, even if they might not have been in the wrong.  Adrian  M. H.  20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When an editor, or even two editors, state an opinion that some content is biased, but present no evidence or logical argument to support their opinion, I don't see that as a call to seek a compromise. RedSpruce 20:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you were perhaps unwise to seek a third opinion. I'll consider this matter closed from my point of view and let the two of you work this out in a mature way.  Adrian  M. H.  21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would say that it was unwise of you to offer a third opinion if you couldn't support that opinion with a logical argument, or even clarify what you said. Third opinions shouldn't be "opinions" in the sense of "I prefer vanilla to chocolate because it tastes better." RedSpruce 14:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) If you are going to be particularly obtuse about it, I will make one more post here and spell it out for you. I have already made it abundantly clear why the link between the political climate and Remington's death at the hands of violent prisoners is only tenuously linked: he was successfully tried for perjury, not communist activity, some charges of which related to his passing of secret material. The prisoners used his alleged political beliefs as a reason to attack him, but that has less to do with McCarthyism specifically and more to do with the wider post-war climate.

I'm sure you are already familiar with the section of WP:NPOV entitled A Simple Formulation; it states that NPOV not only applies to material but also to its sources and states that you must not assert the opinions of said sources, but report them in a fair and factual manner. A fictional example: "John Smith stated in his book that . . . . but his is the only publication to have espoused this viewpoint". You may also add that "it has not been the subject of any significant denouncements from his established literary peers".

Next up, you should read the sections entitled A vital component: good research and Attributing and substantiating biased statements. If, after reading WP:NPOV in full, you still cannot present this author's assertion in the proper manner, then you will likely find the other editor's opinion to be unchanged, and I would have to agree with him.  Adrian  M. H.  18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In your pgh 1 you assert that there is a distinction between the cold war climate of hatred toward real and suspected communists and McCarthyism. There isn't. Your pgh 2 doesn't apply in any way I can see. When a scholar's view is a minority view, according to NPOV policy it must be described as such. You haven't demonstrated (or even attempted to demonstrate) that Schrecker's view is a minority view; you've stated that you personally disagree with it (based on the fallacy of pgh 1). Pgh 3 I entirely agree with, except that it applies to you, not me. Please read the WP:NPOV article; perhaps doing so will help you to present your arguments correctly. RedSpruce 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had enough of your argumentative attitude, Redspruce. Do not take your frustrations out on me when I was trying to help you. You requested the 3O, remember? Now that you have an outside opinion, either accept it or not, but either way, quit complaining and quit criticising where it is not justified. You are violating WP:AGF and making inaccurate comments about me, which must cease right now. Of course there is a distinction between McCarthyism and negative public or personal feeling towards communism. To use an example that illustrates my background in respect of anti-communist feeling, do you think that the general public in Britain thought about McCarthy's ideologies, or just a more general non-communist ideology? I can tell you that it was the latter. Let's put an end to the mistaken idea that I have an opinion about Schecker; I don't know or care if she really has a minority view, but Jtpaladin has made it clear that he believes this to be the case and you have not yet produced evidence to counter it, as far as I know. With regard to his assessment, I have taken him at his word. If you have already provide additional sources, then I wonder whether Jtpaladin should have softened his opinion about Schrecker. As long as there is only one provided source that apparently holds this viewpoint, it should be handled as a minority view in the sense that one needs to apply detachment per my earlier example. You can see that technique used in many articles. Sure, I would have preferred it if Jtpaladin, or another interested and knowledgeable party, could have provide either counter-sources or even sources that supported Schrecker. But they have not done so. So I can only assume that Schrecker's view, regardless of its validity or otherwise, is a minority view. Therefore it should have been presented in the required detached manner. I long ago met you half way by suggesting this modification in order to appease the concerns of the other party, but at no point have you acknowledged that.  Adrian  M. H.  15:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Adrian, I have not failed to assume good faith. I have pointed out your failure to present logical arguments, and when you finally presented arguments, I found fault with them. In particular, I don't accept your interpretation of what McCarthyism means. In the writings of every historian I've ever read on the subject, "McCarthyism" includes a general suspicion and hostility towards real and suspected communists. For the sake of brevity, this aspect of the word may not appear in all dictionary definitions, but it's a part of the way the word is used. By virtue of the cited book, Ellen Schrecker clearly works under that definition. If you know of an author who rejects such a definition, I'd be very interested to hear about it. Further, you still hold that Schrecker's view "should be handled as a minority view," and you "can only assume that Schrecker's view... is a minority view," but you don't justify this. I can only assume that your reason for this is the one that I stated: that you personally disagree with Schrecker's view, based on your limited and incorrect definition of "McCarthyism." Or do you believe that with every point in every article that uses a single source as a reference, that point and that source should be automatically considered a minority view?  RedSpruce 18:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, you are on thin ice here. I will respond on your user talk page, as this discussion has become circular and has less and less to do with the subject of the article. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have justified its handling as a minority view as follows, and whether I believe it to be a minority view is largely irrelevant - I have no opinion about whether it is or is not, but it should be handled as if it is because it currently cannot be shown to be otherwise. If it is not a minority view, other sources would back it up. Handling it in the detached manner previously outlined does not undermine the validity of Schrecker's argument, but serves to avoid the issue of undue weight, which can and does occur when presenting one person's opinion as a fact if that opinion has a significant bearing on the article (which this one does).  Adrian  M. H.  18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Adrian, I have to admit that your responses have improved over time. You still put forward the premise that Schrecker's opinion should automatically be treated as a minority view, and that doesn't make sense, as I pointed out above. However, I think the words "minority view" clouded the issue. I accept your point that the current placement of Schrecker's statement avoids giving undue weight to something that might appear to be a single author's view. It has always been obvious to me that any author in the field of McCarthyism would agree with Schrecker on this point, but since I haven't taken the time to document that, I don't have grounds for objecting to the current article text. RedSpruce 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Red, consensus is against you. Stop putting that part in because it does not meet WP:CON, WP:Revert, and WP:RS. If you restore it without tipping the scales of consensus in your favor, you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Also, you are using only one source when in fact there are other sources available as well. Jtpaladin 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong on all counts. You are advocating an edit that you have not in any way defended. You are deleting a simple and inarguable statement of fact: That Remington's death has been cited as being a result of McCarthyism. At no point have you argued that this fact is incorrect, and yet you want the fact removed from the article. As I've said before, if there other sources that give a contrary argument, by all means add something from them. Alternatively, since you think I'm such a rampaging WP outlaw, please bring in an admin to tell me the error of my ways. RedSpruce 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to lower the temperature in here. JT, resorting to warnings and threats is not going to encourage consensus with anyone, particularly someone you have been in an edit dispute with. Red, you need to allow your source to be placed in an appropriate context, and allow the definition of "appropriate" to develop by consensus, not through your own sense of "what really happened." -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Rob, but admittedly I was getting a bit disturbed by the claim that Remington was a victim of McCarthyism when in fact he was convicted of a crime that had nothing to do with McCarthy or the time period in which he was convicted. The man who murdered Remington in prison was clearly a mentally disturbed individual who used whatever reason he wanted to use in order to excuse his crime. People get murdered in prison all the time and make up phoney excuses to explain their behavior. Taking the word of this prisoner is hardly the basis of making an argument for Remington being a victim of McCarthyism. If the sentence is to be included, I would think that a better source be given and consensus be established for it. Jtpaladin 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Schrecker's view of Remington's homicide does not belong in the first paragraph. I have placed it in the final paragraph, with a wikilink to the scholar who asserts it, and followed by a Gary May quote that also assesses the meaning of Remington's case. This shows a range of scholarly opinion without choosing sides. There is no question that Schrecker is a qualified expert, but her opinion is not definitive. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rob. I don't agree with you that Schrecker's view doesn't belong in the first paragraph; I think it belongs in the intro because it gives context that explains a major reason why Remington is a notable person. However, I accept the change as a compromise. RedSpruce 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * RedSpruce, as I mentioned, Remington is not even listed as a "victim" of "McCarthyism" in the article on "McCarthyism". In order to be counted as a victim by this standard, he would have had to either have lost his job because of Senator McCarthy saying something that wasn't true or have been accused of security/loyalty claims that were not true. Remington was a convicted criminal who was not in jail because of either of these issues. So, it would be inappropriate to suggest that Remington was a victim of McCarthyism. Aside from that, you only cite one very biased source that makes that claim. Lastly, out of three people who have chimed in on this issue, 2 of the 3, are against keeping that statement. If you have further reasons for keeping that sentence, please discuss it. I will post this comment on your User page and the Remington Discussion page as well. Thank you. Jtpaladin 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

JT, this is not a tug-o'-war between you and RedSpruce. Also, kindly address the article in its current form. The article does not identify Remington as a "'victim' of 'McCarthyism'." The word "victim" does not occur at all, and the reference to McCarthyism is in a qualified context. Schrecker is now cited with a link to the article about her, so readers can easily get additional information to evaluate the claim. It is also placed alongside May's summation of the case. You may consider Schrecker "very biased," and you may be right, but she is nevertheless a qualified source. The problem consisted in using her book as the only or definitive source. If you want to exclude it entirely, I cannot support you without better cause. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rob, I have already agreed to your edit and find the subject closed. I think you did a great job in settling the matter. Thank you for your efforts. However RedSpruce is engaging in personal attacks putting him in violation of WP:NPA, as can be found here []. He needs to get a grip on reality and understand that consensus building is part of the work in making an article work and that he does not own the Remington article. I would appreciate if you could tell him to stop vandalizing my Talk page with his bizzare comments. Thank you. Jtpaladin 15:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done so. I agree that the personal antagonisms that have arisen should be kept off this talk page as much as possible. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary repetition via footnote quotes
Recent edits by Richard Arthur Norton (RAN) have added the following quotes within footnotes:
 * 1) William Walter Remington ... Born in New York City in 1917, he was raised in Ridgewood, New Jersey...
 * 2) The victim: William Walter Remington, B.A., Phi Beta Kappa (Dartmouth), M.A. (Columbia), and convicted perjurer.
 * 3) When ex-Spy Bentley repeated her charge on a television show, Remington sued for $100,000 slander, settled out of court, reportedly for $10,000
 * 4) In New York William Remington, former Government economist, was found guilty last week of perjury on two counts: 1) denying he had passed secret information to onetime Communist Spy Elizabeth Bentley, and 2) denying that he knew about the existence of a Young Communist League chapter at Dartmouth while a student there.
 * 5) William W. Remington, former Government economist imprisoned for having perjured himself concerning Communist associations, died in the Federal penitentiary here today of injuries received in a beating on Monday.
 * 6) The Federal Bureau of Investigation said today that an accused slayer of William W. Remington, former Government economist, had asserted that robbery was the motive for the crime.

The first 5 of these simply repeat, at length, information that's already in the article, while the 6th is both repetitious and irrelevant to the article text it's attached to. Thus all of these contribute nothing, yet RAN insists upon keeping them (and adding to them, as the article history shows).

I have had this dispute with this editor in several articles, and he has never been able to defend this editing practice. He persists despite the unanimous opposition expressed by nine editors in this discussion.RedSpruce (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal policy, it is Wikipedia policy. Validated by Arbcom. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RfC response: Unfortunately RAN has a personal policy that he insists on imposing on Wikipedia. I've countered this policy in at least five other RfC's.  I'm unsure on how to proceed from here, but I will give it some thought.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your personal policy is to insert redundant, repetitious and irrelevant material via footnote quotes. That is far from being "Wikipedia policy", and the ArbCom has (apparently) only decided that it isn't their purview to try to correct you in this. It would be entirely appropriate for any individual Admin to take action against you, however. RedSpruce (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RfC response: The material added in the past few weeks has expanded the article and added reliable sources to support statements made therein. I still see no issue with these additions, nor any justification under Wikipedia policy that would require their removal. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You aren't responding to the issue Alansohn. I am not objecting to the newly-added sources, and do not want them removed. My objection is to the quotes within the references. The first 5 of these (listed above) simply repeat, at length, information that's already in the article, while the 6th is both repetitious and irrelevant to the article text it's attached to. RedSpruce (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have noted your objections and pointed out that they are a matter of your preference. There is still no issue with these additions, nor any justification under Wikipedia policy that would require their removal. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any possibility of compromise here? Because simply edit warring about things is definitely not the way to go. --Elonka 04:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A good first step toward a compromise would be a recognition of what the issues are. I've said: "These quotes are repetitious, unnecessary, and in one case downright irrelevant to the footnoted text.
 * Alansohn's and RAN's response is... what? "We like it that way"? RedSpruce (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation and footnote styles vary from article to article, so we generally allow leeway for however a particular article wants to handle it, as long as things are internally consistent. I have seen articles that make excellent use of quotes in footnotes, and I have seen others that avoid them like the plague.  Neither way is "right" or "wrong", that's just the style that was chosen by the editors on that article.  I'm not understanding though why this is an issue that people want to edit-war about? --Elonka 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a valid question, and much of the answer can be found here, skipping ahead to the "statement" section. RAN insists on using footnote quotes in this manner, and while each instance is only mildly detrimental to the article, the detriment is being repeated literally thousands of times over. The ArbCom decided that it wasn't within their purview to address this particular issue, but I keep hoping that somehow, at some article, someone or some event will come into action and put a stop (or at least a slow-down) to his damage. RedSpruce (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, though I'm not understanding why you regard this as "damage"? I definitely see that there are stylistic differences, but I'm not seeing how you regard it as being actively detrimental to the article?  Usually when something is causing a negative impact, other editors will speak up.  You (RedSpruce) obviously feel strongly about this, but I'm still honestly not understanding why. Please try to explain? --Elonka 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well written articles do not repeat the same information several times over (in the case of one article, RAN recently added footnote quotes that ended up repeating the same information four times over). In other cases, as noted in the RfArb statement I linked to above, his quotes contain material that is totally irrelevant to the article text they're linked to. When a reader looks at a footnote they have a right to expect something other than a complete non-sequitur to the article text they were reading.
 * It's also worth noting that a great many other editors have argued with RAN on this point, to no effect; see this from the ArbCom evidence page. As for "other editors speaking up", RAN typically edits lightly-traveled articles, and between his relentless stubbornness, his frequent inability or unwillingness to engage in coherent discussion (see here for one example), and the automatic support of his friend Alansohn in cases of content disputes, he usually ends up getting his way.
 * Lastly, I'll point out that not all of RAN's deleterious edits are in the form of footnote quotes. He often adds trivial points, with no recognition of the fact that just because he has found documentation for a point, that doesn't mean that that point is worth including in an article, or worth including with as much coverage as more important points. RedSpruce (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where a quote is too detailed, have you ever tried to edit it to something more succinct? Or is your reaction usually to delete the entire quote? Also, please consider refactoring terms in your post which could be considered an attack.  It's one thing to discuss an editor's behavior, it's another to project an assumed emotional state onto him.  Let's just stick with the behavior. --Elonka 14:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

←Trying to trim down a quote that I find excessive is a good suggestion, and I'll try it when I get an opportunity. Of course, that won't work in cases where the quoted text is simply irrelevant to the article text. Your point about "refactoring" terms that could be considered an attack is also good advice, but I don't see anywhere that I could apply it in my comment above. Can you point to something in particular? RedSpruce (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your doing the same thing, removing references but now calling it "trimming". I have restored the reference to Time magazine which supported the two charges. It looks like the material showed up as a deletion because the format was changed for the reference so it showed up in red, and was not reflected in the edit summary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trimming sounds fine, but where a dispute comes up, I would recommend slowing things down. Focus on one or two specific quotes, and if someone reverts, instead of immediately reverting back, try to come up with a compromise version.  Ditto with the other person reverting, instead of immediately pushing the article back to your own preferred version, try to come up with a compromise.  With each person changing each other's work, rather than reverting, it will probably be much easier to try and come up with a consensus version. Also, use clear, calm, and neutral edit summaries, referring strictly to the article, and not the editors.
 * In terms of refactoring, what I was referring to was cases where a particular editor was being referred to. When a post is phrased such as "You did this wrong" or "He is unwilling" or "He's just always stubborn", then that's getting away from discussing the article content, and is veering off into discussing the editors.  Better is to try and phrase talkpage posts without referring to editors.  Good habits to develop (though they can take  time to get the hang of it), are to avoid the words "you" and "your". Also, avoid naming specific editors in a post, as that often has the immediate result of making someone defensive, and then they may miss everything else that's said. Instead, when it is necessary to refer to a specific thing that was done, diff the edit without mentioning the editor.  Like, "I disagree with this edit (diff), as I feel it's a violation of (policy/guideline).  A better way to handle things would be (suggestion)"  I know it may sound a bit confusing to do this, but I have seen that using this kind of third-party discussion technique, can work wonders in de-escalating disputes.  It also tends to make whoever is using the technique, sound extraordinarily calm and thoughtful, even if off-wiki they may be hopping mad. :) It also has the added benefit of making things much easier for administrators to take action.  When an uninvolved admin comes to a page in dispute, and they see everyone yelling at each other, the admin normally assumes that everyone is a bit in the wrong.  The admin won't care "who started it", they'll just address things as they see them in that moment.  But if an admin comes to a page and sees five editors discussing things calmly, and one editor being uncivil, then it makes it much easier to figure out how to reduce the disruption.  Caveat: Just because one editor is being uncivil, doesn't necessarily mean that they're in the wrong.  But if the discussion has degraded to the point where all they're doing is name-calling, rather than actually discussing the article, then that's a problem that an administrator can easily address, by removing the non-constructive editors from the discussion. --Elonka 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that changes to the article should be discussed here and consensus for change made beforehand. This a mature article, not a stub. We are under an RFC, and have at least 3 active contributors to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are different ways to work on an article. One way is to discuss all changes on the talkpage first, another is to make a steady set of tweaks, another is to follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, etc.  This is just my suggestion from what I've seen of the editing styles of the key contributors, but I recommend a 0RR (no revert) method.  I'd pick one paragraph (or even one sentence) that's in dispute, and have everyone work on it, never reverting, but instead making each edit build on the changes of the previous editor, in a steady series of tweaks to try and find a compromise version.  Then once one paragraph is done, move on to another.  My guess is that as the involved editors became more familiar with each other's style, that changes would go much easier after that.  Anytime things got down to a binary "one way or the other" dispute, then take it to the talkpage and get more input.  But it's usually very rare that disputes boil down to a binary change.  Those are usually in places like disputes over infoboxes, where there's disagreement on how to name someone's birth city, or what their nationality was.  And even there, compromises are available such as adding alternate spellings in parentheses, or adding a footnote to an infobox which describes alternate views.  But here in this case, where the disagreement is quantity of text in footnotes, I am confident that if everyone operates with an assumption of good faith, that a compromise will be possible. I truly don't think that anyone here is trying to damage the article.  All editors appear to be working in good faith, with the common goal of providing a high-quality article which is useful for our readers.  Where the disagreement comes in, is in the definition of "high quality".  But I think everyone's heart is in the right place.  :) --Elonka 20:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points of advice are well-phrased, Elonka, and I'll do my best to adhere to them. Considering the tension of the situation, I agree it was wrong of me to make a series of edits without painstaking discussion here first. I thank RAN for undoing his wholesale revert and I thank you for your calm negotiating. So let's move on.


 * Working from the list of edits I recently made, here's the first diff: The only non-formatting change is in the quote; from
 * In New York William Remington, former Government economist, was found guilty last week of perjury on two counts: 1) denying he had passed secret information to onetime Communist Spy Elizabeth Bentley, and 2) denying that he knew about the existence of a Young Communist League chapter at Dartmouth while a student there.
 * to
 * William Remington, former Government economist, was found guilty... of perjury on two counts: 1) denying he had passed secret information to onetime Communist Spy Elizabeth Bentley, and 2) denying that he knew about the existence of a Young Communist League chapter at Dartmouth...
 * Both quotes contain no unique information and repeat at considerable length material that's already in the article. However, the second is a little shorter, and reduces the repetition. I'm willing to accept this as a compromise.
 * Comments? RedSpruce (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Negotiation re footnote quotes
I'm starting a new section here for ease of editing, and I'd also like to withdraw my above post. I made a series of edits to the article in which I single-handedly came up with a compromise on several footnote quotes. It's been rightly pointed out to me that this was peremptory of me, and that compromise should be arrived at through negotiation. So let's start negotiating from the position that we each think is best for the article. Here's my first point:
 * The following footnote quote:
 * In New York William Remington, former Government economist, was found guilty last week of perjury on two counts: 1) denying he had passed secret information to onetime Communist Spy Elizabeth Bentley, and 2) denying that he knew about the existence of a Young Communist League chapter at Dartmouth while a student there.
 * simply repeats, at length, material that's already in the article. Thus it has no value and can only be an annoyance to a reader. My position is that it should be removed.
 * Comments? RedSpruce (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RAN has made about 60 Wikipedia edits since I posted the above call for comments. How long should we wait before assuming he's lost interest in this article? RedSpruce (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Decisions are made by those who show up. If you have suggested changes to the article, and no one responds within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), I would say go ahead with the changes suggested.  Then wait another day or two, and if there is still no objection, continue (slowly) with your other changes.  If someone changes or reverts one of your changes, stop then and take things to the talkpage.  If someone does a global revert, you have the right to revert them back and point them at the talkpage (and I'll probably step in as well at that point).  The key to this is to proceed cautiously.  See also the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. --Elonka 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With that scenario in mind, my current "suggested changes to the article" are to remove all six of the repetitious, unnecessary and irrelevant footnote quotes listed at the top of the "Unnecessary repetition via footnote quotes" section above. If RAN has an objection to that, he can rejoin us here and we can start negotiating point-by-point. If he doesn't return to the discussion, then I may want to make further edits to the article beyond those 6 items. I will undertake those edits in the slow and careful means you describe. RedSpruce (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I have responded numerous times about the quotations in question and I don't see any justification under Wikipedia policy that would require their removal. I understand that you don't like the practice and I respect your right to disagree, though whether that line has been crossed by dozens of blanket reversions is a major concern to me. We've already been through a few dozen WP:BRD cycles, and it seems that I am not the only editor who sees no issue with inclusion of brief quoted material in references. I would sincerely hope that when the same question is asked the 37th time that the responses from the previous 36 occasions will be accepted as valid answers to that same question and will not be treated as a failure to respond. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to have you join this discussion, Alansohn. I'll assume that you want to take things point-by-point, so if you would, please respond to my point regarding the first footnote quote above:
 * In New York William Remington, former Government economist, was found guilty last week of perjury on two counts: 1) denying he had passed secret information to onetime Communist Spy Elizabeth Bentley, and 2) denying that he knew about the existence of a Young Communist League chapter at Dartmouth while a student there.
 * This simply repeats, at length, material that's already in the article, and thus has no value and can only be an annoyance to a reader. Can you give us your opinion as to what value it does add to the article, or perhaps offer a compromise that might be acceptable to all parties? RedSpruce (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Providing the material used to support a reference provides details to the reader as to where in the article or book the material that supports the statement comes from. My annoyance levels decrease significantly when I know what the source is, not just the article or book from whence it came, a benefit I enjoy in scholarly books and literature as well as on Wikipedia. There is no evidence of any annoyance from any third-party reader that would need to be addressed. This is largely a stylistic preference, and I still appreciate that it's not your style. I'm not sure what compromise short of complete removal of all such cited quotations would be accepted. Perhaps specifying which quotations you would live with and which you feel are unnecessary might provide a better starting point in finding a middle ground. Alansohn (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You refer to "a benefit I enjoy in scholarly books and literature as well as on Wikipedia." Could you point to a scholarly book that uses quotations from a source in this manner--simply to repeat material that's already in the body text of the book? I don't mean footnotes that (with or without quotes) expand and/or clarify the body text, but simply repeat the exact same information.
 * It's true that this could be called a stylistic preference, but there are a few axioms of style. "Do not pointlessly repeat information" is one such axiom.
 * I have listed the quotations that I consider most obviously repetitious (and in one case, both repetitious and irrelevant to the footnoted text) above. RedSpruce (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have been though at least 4 ANIs, at least three RFCs, and an Arbcom decision. The new mantra seems to be they are "repetitious, unnecessary and irrelevant" but the deletion is still the same, it is like shopping for a new wording each time. It is the exact quote from the source, no chance for typos, as was the case with Elizabeth Bentley and her middle name. As with AlanSohn, I am not sure why my previous objections are irrelevant each new time you object. At this point the sourced quotes have been restored by three people. You can reread the lengthy list I provided Arbcom on why quotes in citations are good. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here were my reasons
The quote function has been a part of all the citation templates. Quoting the actual text in the article aids the researcher and the fact checker, you can see the text in situ in the sentence that was used by the original author. No rule obliges an editor to use it, nor does any rule forbid its use. Facts in books need to be checked once before publishing. Facts in Wikipedia need to be checked continuously since editing is continuous, editors range from experts to amateurs, and subtle vandalism is hard to detect. Cited quotes provide many useful things for both the casual reader and the serious researcher:
 * 1) Allows for reconnection of broken links to a newspaper and other online articles. For example: if the title is: "Scientist Dead", and the quote is "Today, John Bacon, a New Jersey scientist was killed when his car overturned". A Google search for the title may not find the article, its too general, but a search for the quote string will refind the article. One year ago the New York Times archive was housed at Proquest with different links, and Associated Press reports were not archived by Google. Links are fugitive, Wikipedia is meant to last forever. Even if an external link for the citation is broken, a fully-quoted reference can stand on its own.
 * 2) It provides the actual information for fact checking the citation. You shouldn't have to get a book from the library or purchase an article to find out the exact wording used by an author to see if it actually supports the text in the Wikipedia article. See here
 * 3) It is not a copyright violation, the source is attributed, and the quote is usually a single sentence or two, well within the confines of "fair use". In some cases the title of the news article is longer than the quoted material. The same amount of text, or more is allowed in the body of the article using the blockquote feature. Google uses the same, or more, amount of text when it returns search results, and stores much more in the "cached" version.
 * 4) Redspruce himself uses quotes in references. He writes: "... Tom Wicker refers to Schine as 'Cohn's boyfriend'". It takes up a little less space, because he only encloses two words from the text in the quote, but the reader, including me, is still left to wonder what preceded 'Cohn's boyfriend'. "[He had wild animal sex all day and night as] Cohn's boyfriend" is very different from "[He was derided by his enemies as] Cohn's boyfriend". Others shouldn't have to repeat the effort to find out the exact, non-truncated, single-sentence quote.
 * 5) It doesn't add to clutter, any more than inline citations do already. No one forces a reader to scroll down to the reference section in an article, any more than one is forced to read the endnotes in a book. Just a few years ago no citations were required in Wikipedia articles. Scanning the end of the article, can you pick out my citations among the references and bibliography in the article Joseph_McCarthy that were so contentious that they were deleted multiple times? I don't find bibliographies useful, but I don't delete them.
 * 6) Some Featured Article's do not use them, but they are 365 articles per year of about 500K added per year, and a quick search shows New York City containing them. They can always be suppressed in FAs with an html tag:  and still be available to the serious researcher in the edit mode.
 * 7) Editors are skeptical of new information added to articles, so the best effort should be made to persuade them that the information is legitimate, and make that vetting process as easy as possible. See examples here where a skeptical editor deletes new information added to articles. The burden is on me, the person adding the information, to persuade the skeptic that the information is factual and verifiable and supports the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) June 24, 2008


 * 1) Arguably a real advantage, but obviously an insignificant one, not likely ever to be used.
 * 2) "Fact checking" is not facilitated, since the quote could be fabricated just as easily as any other part of the reference. Inclusion of the proper wording to correctly reflect what the source says is the job of the editor. Since quotes can famously be "taken out of context", a quote cannot by itself prove that the viewpoint of the source is being accurate depicted. If the footnote quote presents unique information, not found elsewhere in the article, then it isn't the type of footnote quotation I'm objecting to here.
 * 3) Some have apparently argued that quoting sources sometimes constitutes a copyright violation; That argument has not been made here. It certainly doesn't count as an argument in favor of repetitious and irrelevant footnote quotes.
 * 4) Irrelevant, since neither I nor--to my knowledge--anyone else has argued that using quotations in footnotes is in and of itself a bad thing. The issue here is repetitious and irrelevant footnote quotes.
 * 5) The argument is about repetition and irrelevancy, not "clutter." Readers have a right to expect that text placed in front of them will be interesting and/or useful, not pointless repetition. The history of citations in Wikipedia is irrelevant. The Joseph McCarthy article irrelevant.
 * 6) It there were Featured Articles on record that used footnote quotes in this way--to repeat information that's already in the article, then that might be notable. The New York City article does not do this and is irrelevant. The fact that text in a Wikipedia article can be hidden from a non-editing reader is irrelevant.
 * 7) The first part is a repetition of #2. The second part is false; RAN knows that the "skeptical editor" in question was me, and he knows that the scenario he presents is a fabrication on his part and has nothing to do with references with quotes.
 * RedSpruce (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, I'd like your input at this point. I've just dismissed almost all of RAN's points. Do you think that I'm incorrect or use false reasoning in in any of my counterpoints? RedSpruce (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that since the three of you are key participants here, that I'd like to see a compromise, rather than "one way or the other". I would recommend focusing the discussion on one specific footnote, and seeing if you can find a middle ground. --Elonka 05:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Interesting" and/or "useful", not "pointless repetition", are all 100% subjective. Objectively it is the quote from the original source of the cited material, and is useful or useless depending on the reader. I agree you find them useless and want to delete them, but deleting them 10, 20, 30 times is not going to change my view, or the view of the others restoring them, or Arbcom, or the people who responded to the RFCs. To quote Arbcom "edit warring over style is lame" (their summary of the case you brought to them). This is a binary decision (in or out), I don't see room to compromise, beyond what I have done already to trim them down to a single sentence or two, or change their placement (see edit history). Looking at your edit history, deleting my additions to the articles appears to be your major concern at Wikipedia, to the point where you are not creating new content. I believe that is displaying WP:Ownership where you resist change to articles that you have an emotional attachment to. I can't convince you of their utility and you can't convince me of their uselessness, that's why we arrived at consensus through the RFCs, at that point it should have been a closed issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RAN, I'm not as convinced as you that a compromise is impossible. I am however convinced that your unprovoked personal attacks above are not a good way to make progress toward such a compromise. Any comment on that, Elonka? RedSpruce (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that there's obviously a lot of frustration all around, but that compromise is possible. As an exercise, it might be helpful if each person could try and state the positive things about each other's editing (even if you have to struggle to find something nice to say), and it may help de-escalate the situation? Again, from where I sit, I see positive qualities in everyone, I just wish you all could see it in each other.  :) So, do you see anything right in each other's editing? --Elonka 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing WP:Ownership is not an "unprovoked personal attack". Your threshold for feeling your being attacked is odd, since you called me an "idiot" and a "moron" previously. For which you never apologized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Positive and "nice" thing I have to say about RAN: He is consistent.
 * Accusing another editor of claiming ownership of an article and saying that I "resist change to articles that you have an emotional attachment to" is an insult. Saying that "deleting my additions to the articles appears to be your major concern at Wikipedia" is an insult. Pretending to be unaware of obvious points like this is a part of your hallmark consistency, for which I commend you.
 * I insulted you after the lengthy provocation shown in this exchange, which probably would have provoked Mahatma Gandhi to some similar words. However, I'll admit that it was unfair to say that your insults were "unprovoked." People are often provoked to insult when they feel they have no where else to turn. In my case, I was provoked by your refusal or inability to respond rationally to what I was saying. Blocked from rational discourse, I resorted to insulting you. In your case, the provocation is that I have responded rationally to what you say, and in so doing I invalidated all of your points. With your resources of rational discourse exhausted, you naturally resort to insulting me. RedSpruce (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Responding to my points is not the intellectual equivalent of invalidating them. Ultimately consensus determines what stays and what goes. See below where you override consensus multiple times, even after being blocked for "edit warring". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've been looking through the histories here, it's clear that there were harsh words from multiple editors, doubtless said in the heat of anger. It would be nice if we, as adults, could figure out to apologize, forgive, and move on, but I realize that it takes time to rebuild trust.  By the way, could someone  please provide specific diffs of the exact comments that they most took offense to?  I would like to see them "in location".  Thanks, Elonka 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the best summary is the ANI brought against me by RedSpruce in March, and the subsequent one against him by AlanSohn here. One of my earliest encounters with RedSpruce was here, where he called me an idiot and a moron. If you read the skeptical editor link here, you can see at various points RS reverts additions I make to the articles he has worked on. Its good to have pride in your additions to Wikipedia, but pride is a deadly sin, especially if you are excluding others from contributing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a summary of the same deletion multiple times, despite 3 editors reversing his deletions. Even if consensus is established the edit warring continues: Here Redspruce removes facts not added to article by himself on May 01, reverted by AlanSohn and again the same deletions here back to his version on May 08. Again during an active Arbcom on this very subject. He does it again on June 02, reverted by AlanSohn and once again on the same day here, again reverted by AlanSohn; again here on June 06 reverted by me; June 15 reverted by BioPhys; and again here on June 19 and it is reverted by me. Then the war just moves to a new article, that is why we are now here. Look at the RS edit history and see that the past 1,000 edits have been almost exclusively at just 6 articles, mostly reverting additions to the articles. Compare that to my last 1,000 edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

History of encounters
This is my first encounter with RS over the article Annie Lee Moss over this edit. The edit wasn't over trimming the reference, or placing its better. I was just removing it:
 * If you can't explain and justify your edits, then you are admitting that they are meaningless and unjustifiable. Continuing to make edits that you admit are meaningless and unjustifiable is, shall we say, not the most intelligent behavior imaginable. RedSpruce (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Continuing to make disputed edits while refusing to engage in a discussion about those edits is a form of disruptive behavior, and will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. RedSpruce (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are a complete idiot and moron. Please take your stupidity to some other article. Thank you. RedSpruce (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than copy/pasting the actual statements, diffs would be better, thanks. --Elonka 21:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think saying that RS displays WP:Ownership tendencies is offensive. That is why we have that article. Calling someone an "idiot and moron" is uncivil. He has never apologized, just rationalized that he was pushed to it by my restorations of his deletions, and for not engaging in his diatribe, and it made him feel better to do it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RAN, thank you for the links. RedSpruce, do you have any diffs of your own, of specific comments of RAN in the past which still bother you?  It is my hope that if we can clear the air on past communications, it may be easier to move forward, perhaps by everyone involved either apologizing for past statements, or going to where those statements/comments are in archive, and deleting them.  Though it may sound odd, that kind of small action, deleting a word that was said in anger and later regretted, can actually have a very powerful effect in de-escalating a conflict. It also makes the deleter look extraordinarily mature, to show that they are able to reconsider and refactor their own past statements. --Elonka 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting them from the archive would be 100% wrong. We shouldnt airbrush over history, but move forward. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See my proposal below. I am not interested in this game. If I were to try to come up with a list of things for RAN to apologize it would have to encompass virtually everything he's ever written to or about me, and the research alone would take months. The goal here should not be for us to arrive at a state of something better than disgust for one another, and that's good, because that's not going to happen. By following the guidelines I list below, we can still negotiate, simply by being forced to leave that disgust unspoken. RedSpruce (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a list of all of the articles where the dispute has taken place? What is the common thread?  Thanks, Elonka 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've had disputes in many (maybe 8 to 12?) articles, and over many different issues. Quotes in footnotes is the most common issue, but by no means the only one. If I wanted to say what the overall common thread is, I'd say it is that RAN has no concept of what belongs in an article -- what is valid and worthwhile content and what is extraneous, repetitious, redundant, trivia, irrelevant, etc. Luckily, whenever we've had a dispute in an article where a fair number of editors are active, or become active, the majority is always opposed to the worst of his edits and the outcome has been satisfactory to me. RedSpruce (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RedSpruce, the above post is another personal attack, and I would ask you to please re-write it. You don't know what RAN does or doesn't know.  You may have a difference of opinion on how to provide quality articles, but please present these opinions in relation to the article, not an assumption of the editor's mental state.  Thanks, Elonka 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
I have a proposal that might allow us to get a fresh start. Namely, that we drop discussion of this article for now, and move to a different one, but with some clear and enforced ground rules. As a part of this proposal I suggest we make the goals of the initial discussion very small.

The article I have in mind is G. David Schine, with the goal for the discussion being to come to an agreement about the lede paragraph of the article. Furthermore, we can make any discussion of the quotes in the footnotes in this section off-bounds until other issues have been settled. (There are issues of contention that have nothing to do with footnote quotes.)

I think this might be a fruitful thing for us to work on, because I believe that past discussion on the issues around the lede to this article have been characterized by (real or pretended) misunderstanding, and the discussion consisted mainly of wheel-spinning. With a third party involved, there will be a neutral opinion on whether some point has been explained with sufficient clarity, and to provide a rewording of that point if needed. The issues in question are not simply matters of opinion (as some have argued that footnote quotes are) but questions about whether the article lede is misleading and whether its references are appropriate.

Having ground rules will save time and reduce any further worsening of the hostility between RAN, Alansohn and myself. The ground rules I suggest are: Elonka will be the arbiter of violations. On the first offense the offending editor will be warned and will be required to explicitly withdraw the offending comment. On the second offense the editor will be blocked for 24 hours. Every subsequent offense will add 24 hours to the blocking period.
 * 1) There will be no mention of any party's past behavior
 * 2) There will be no mention of any party's statements or edits that are outside the realm of that particular discussion of that particular article. Thus there will be no mention of what an editor "said he wanted", "said he thought", etc. in previous discussions of G. David Schine (or anything else)
 * 3) There will be no mention of any party's actual or theorized motivations (regardless of whether one considers this an "insult")
 * 4) There will be no insults, as determined by Elonka
 * 5) In the event a party makes a comment that is not germane to the discussion immediately at hand, Elonka will point this out to the party and delete the comment
 * 6) There will be no discussion of any topic not clearly connected to the issue at hand
 * 7) If a question is posed, or a point or proposal made and there is no response after a reasonable time, "silence indicates agreement" will apply
 * 8) All parties will use standard Indentation, with no asterisks or other ornamentation.

Alansohn and/or RAN might argue that "consensus" has been reached on this article. Aside from Alansohn, RAN and myself, there have been a few "drive-by" edits or expressions of opinion on this article, the drive-by's showing no clear preference. Given RAN and Alansohn's history of automatically supporting each other, and given that is is a "consensus of only 2 against 1, and that I believe questions of documented fact, rather than opinion, are involved, I propose that this "consensus" has no merit.

If progress can be made on this narrowly defined arena, perhaps it will be possible to expand the experience to other conflicts. RedSpruce (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounded good until I got to "Given RAN and Alansohn's history of automatically supporting each other", which is not only untrue, but would seem to violate conditions numbers one, three and four (if not two and five, as well), nor do I agree with your interpretation of WP:Consensus. While RAN and I have a substantial overlap in our Wikipedia philosophies, I think that we have both demonstrated that among our more than 110,000 combined edits to tens of thousands of articles, we have actively worked to improve, expand and reliably source a number of articles that are within your particular field of interest. That said, it's still a start, and a genuine effort to adhere to the proposed guidelines might well be an avenue to resolving the points of difference. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'm not suggesting that these ground rules come into force this instant. They're for use only within the constraints of the actual negotiation that I propose, and that will have a precise starting time. That's what allows the rules to be so rigidly restrictive. If your only objection is that I pointed out that you and RAN have a history of automatically supporting each other, then we're okay, since I'll happily strike that remark.
 * Note that i've proposed another ground rule about indenting comments, btw. If you want to argue against this, feel free; I'll be interested to see your reasoning. RedSpruce (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that I disagree with AlanSohn as much as I do with RedSpruce, because we edit more articles in common. We both write on New Jersey and New York City topics. Our first encounter was an argument over unincorporated areas of New Jersey. I also disagreed over how he formatted his references without using the standard citation templates, and we also disagree over italics for newspaper names in references (work= vs. publisher =). We also disagree over "The New York Times" vs. "New York Times". Our big difference is that we don't edit war (such as the Schine chronology above with RedSpruce with 6 reversals and 6 restorations by three people), we just agree that we each think differently and there is room for each person's style in Wikipedia. We both seem to agree that getting the information in Wikipedia is more important than lame edit warring over style (Arbcom's take on the issue). We also don't filibuster, or try to proselytize each other. Since I have left Alansohn messages and his page is on my watchlist, I see when others leave messages on articles he is editing, and I sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree. I also have RedSpruce's page on my watchlist, and dozens of others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks RAN, for the most interesting and charming history of your relationship with Alansohn, for the laughably incorrect summation of the ArbCom ruling, and for illustrating why the ground rules I list above will be an absolute necessity for any actual negotiation where you're involved.
 * Now, by any chance to you have a response to the proposal at hand here? RedSpruce (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RedSpruce, the above comment is uncivil, could you please rewrite it? Thanks, Elonka 17:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am extremely disappointed that basic guidelines on civility will not be respected until after your terms are accepted as is, nor can I accept a demand that your perceived failure to receive a response within your self-decided time frame constitutes acceptance of whatever your latest point might be. I have responded dozens of times to your requests and offered repeated explanations for why I think my edits and other edits made to the various articles in question should remain largely as is. I am more than willing to discuss any proposed changes, with no preconditions necessary (though observing rules on civility would probably a good idea, even without all of us agreeing to abide by them). Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to restart the clock and create new ground rules for the RFC. The RFC already occurred and consensus was reached. The rules of engagement established by Wikipedia for dispute resolution have already been carefully crafted by the community. I don't thing we need to have a "do over" and spend more time thinking of new rules. I would rather use established rules, and move on to new articles. I would rather spend time adding new content to Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Done for now
Elonka, in your two most recent comments, especially the second, you've made it clear that you are not neutral on this issue, cannot maintain a pretense of neutrality, and therefor you cannot serve as any kind of a mediator. Therefore all discussion is closed as far as I'm concerned. If you know of a colleague who might be interested in looking into this case, please do so, because I genuinely believe that some progress can be made. have them contact me on my Talk page. I won't be watching this page for the time being. RedSpruce (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not here as a mediator, I am here as an uninvolved administrator. There have been a number of personal attacks on this page which I have overlooked, because it was my hope that if the rules were relaxed a bit to "get things on the table", that it might be possible to clear the air and then move forward. However, this open season is now over.   If there are further personal attacks or incivility by any editor, restrictions may be placed on that editor.  On the other hand, I would consider it an excellent sign of good faith and maturity, if the editors on this page would reconsider their previous comments, and refactor anything which might be considered a personal attack.  I think that this would be a good way to try and de-escalate this dispute, rather than continuing to revisit the same grievances. --Elonka 03:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never been against trimming the quotations, or using another sentence from the original article that better sums up the material. Sometimes the information is mentioned in the lede, and in more detail later in an article. Either sentence can be used. I haven't objected to the placement of the footnote. Sometimes people want it after the info in the middle of the sentence, or at the end of the sentence or at the end of the paragraph if the reference is covering more than one sentence. All those things have always been negotiable, but never asked for. As in the above example at G. David Schine all my additions to the article have been deleted, overriding consensus and they have been labeled as "trivia" and "irrelevant". When consensus was reached at one article, the same argument shifted to a new article, and a new argument started at the old article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem citation
There are several citations in this form inside curly brackets:
 * Harvnb|May| 1994 |p=227

That produce uninformative output like this:
 * May 1994, p. 227

How should these read? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw no citation of an article in the May 21,1949 issue of The New Yorker By Danial Lang under the ongoing title "A Reporter at Large" and specifically titled "The Days of Suspicion". This covers the period when William Remington was first exonerated of charges of disloyalty. This might be helpful in providing a fuller understanding of what happened. Certainly what followed was unexpected when the article was published and raises the question if the New Yorker ever updated this story as facts later developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.16.57 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)