User:Collect/archive2015b

Rick Santorum revert
The discussion I see in the TP archives is about giving the 'definition' in the article, I did not add the definition, and I agree it would be inappropriate, but the issue is already discussed, and the neologism article ALREADY linked and discussed in the article body. Your es is misleading, the only discussion I see about a link in the See Also section was in 2012, about removing the discussion from the article itself and instead making it a See Also entry. The neologism article is obviously within the scope of a See Also list (as would be Santorum Amendment and Gang of Seven as well). It is a 'related article', and complaining about a link to something that is already linked is rather silly IMO. Revent talk 16:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to make it 'explict', MOS:SEEALSO specifically states that a purpose of a See Also list is "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", which clearly applies. Revent talk 16:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was found not to be relevant as a "see also" to the biography of a living person.  It is already linked in the body of the BLP which I think you had not noticed. Collect (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Er, I actually said "the issue is already discussed, and the neologism article ALREADY linked and discussed in the article body". Looking at the archive, I see no indication of that there was such a consensus, but I do see evidence that you have apparently edit warred in the past about mentioning the neologism at all. Revent talk
 * Why are you arguing about this? "... the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --Neil N  talk to me 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The MOS makes that 'statement', but that's not the usual practice.... I would dare say it's far more common that every single link in a See Also is also in the body. If someone wants to avoid an argument, it's usually a good idea to not reply to them in a way that makes it obvious you didn't read what they wrote. From what I see in the talk page history, what Collect wrote in the es of his revert was misleading (if not just wrong), and you are 'supposed' to discuss thing with a person if you disagree with them about a content issue. Why are you objecting to my trying to have a discussion? Revent talk 16:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is usual practice. If you think it's not, suggest a change to MOS:SEEALSO. --Neil N  talk to me 17:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, it is also usual practce. When I occasionally see links in Seealso which are also in the article I remove them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * TBH, I'm far more interested in what I was trying to discuss (an actual content issue) than getting sidetracked into some MOS argument about how 'general' that something stated as 'general' is when it's also described as 'ultimately a matter of editorial judgement'. I get the strong impression it's a pointless conversation to try to have here, though, sadly.
 * Just looking at a random (literally the first one I blindly clicked one off the list) FA, over half of the 'See Also' links are in the body, and two are in the first paragraph of the lead. It's really not uncommon at all. Maybe it arguably 'should be', but it's really, really not. It's extremely common. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 18:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is one of 4000+ pages on my watchlist -- and I try to follow guidelines and policies even when some get upset. Collect (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Any 'upset' on my part is more to do with the way the conversation here went than being reverted. I would think it would be rather obvious why I would question a revert to remove a wikilink with the es 'often discussed on talk pages - never allowed - that link is more about Savage than Santorum' when looking at the talk page archive then shows that same person apparently lost an argument to remove all mention of the subject of the wikilink from the article. I'd also think it would be obvious why I would object to an attempt to discuss it getting a response that makes it clear the person didn't read what I wrote, and someone else then chiming in with 'why are you arguing about this'. Hard to not take such a thing as 'screw BRD and your opinion, we OWN this.' Not that I'm accusing you of bad faith, specifically, but the phrase 'fuck it' comes directly to mind. Makes me once again wonder why I bother. (sigh) Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch
Oh, now I see. I thought those two sentences were repetitive, but now I see they are actually referring to different things. I may be obsessing on it too much, so I'm gonna dial off of it for a couple weeks or so unless I'm called upon. It looks like the page is already in good hands at this point without me and I'm being more annoying than helpful. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 19:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump
I noted that you removed my changes to the Legal affairs section and reverted it to an earlier version on the basis of perceived POV. Your objections: I'll be happy to rewrite what might be construed as POV, but point it out in a some constructive fashion. Don't we want to write a better encyclopedia? The current version of the legal section does not cut it: written over time by many well meaning contributors it lacks coherence, is confusing, and painful to read. His bankruptcy dealings are unclear (how many?, corporate?, personal?, strategy?) and admixed with other totally unrelated legal stuff, a game reward even thrown in for good luck.Ekem (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. "no stranger to corporate bankruptcies": I can reword this phrase (although it is unclear why a verifiable comment is POV),
 * 2. "Trump indicated that he uses “the laws of my country to my advantage" may be POV here": that is what he said so how can it be POV, but it can be rewritten,
 * 3."etc.": - a meaningless comment, it is all documented material, none of it my personal opinion.
 * The aim is to abide by all policies and guidelines.
 * Here there are two prime considerations: WP:BLP which requires all claims to be sourced, and WP:NPOV that we use absolutely neutral wording and point of view. If a person can discern a point of view in Wikipedia's voice, we have failed.
 * This means,moreover, that the florid wording found in too many early Wikipedia articles is in disfavour in favour of reasonable readability and pretty straightforward use of facts. See  if you wish to determine just how unreadable most of Wikipedia is.  In general, trying to educe "number of filings" may run afoul of WP:OR which basically says we only say what the reliable sources say.  If they do not reach a specific conclusion, neither ought we.  I hope this helps. Collect (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not helping so far. It would be helpful if you are specific and point out what section I had added (other than 1. and 2. as above) are, in your opinion, POV. Please clarify. Thanks.Ekem (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I want you to improve the article. Just think to yourself as you write whether the information is well-sourced and factual, and whether you are wording it so the reader will not have any idea whether you like the topic or not <g>. If someone in a source is clearly showing an opinion - then call it an opinion and say who holds it.  And do relatively modest edits until you understand this - huge edit tend to be looked at far more loosely than single paragraphs for changes.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom
Re Sam Harris article.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 21:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. Collect (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Langone page
Thank you for being rational about this, it seems that we agree about proper research, attribution and accuracy beyond most other editors. I didn't want to improve the page because this seems to be a pattern with Cwobeel in particular and the false information tends to stick around simply because it appears "sourced". Even when it makes a conclusion not supported by the facts or any sound reasoning - I think most of this comes from misusing Google books. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He seems to have "idée fixe" on a great many biographical pages <g>. I tend to actually read too many sources at times, and I have a couple of editors who appear to monitor my every move at times.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fun edit which shows Cwobeel removing the ACLU source containing a document - replacing with the false and erroneous source that something does not exist. Idée fixe is an understatement.<g> ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request...
Would you be so kind as to review the following? Is there anything you can extract from it that you can modify to be more NPOV compliant? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Short trimming with hedge clippers:(also removing cites as they mess up readability index values)

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, documentary filmmaker and lecturer. His writings focus on a wide range of controversial topics including alternative medicine, and politics.

Griffin began his media career as a child actor, and later an assistant announcer for an NPR station at the University of Michigan, from which he graduated in 1953 with a Bachelor of Science degree.

His writing career began with Fearful Master, published in 1964. The book focuses on the United Nations (UN) and what Griffin theorizes as the structure of the UN and how it functions. He also started producing videos on the same topics. Griffin is noted for The Creature From Jekyll Island, (1994), which explores the history and goals of the Federal Reserve System in a critical manner. In March 2011, he was interviewed on Fox News by Glenn Beck who the book highly. Sean Easter of Media Matters For America wrote a critical review of that interview stating, "Griffin has an extensive history of promoting wild conspiracy theories." In the 1970s, Griffin wrote World Without Cancer (1974), about Laetrile, which is currently banned in the US as it is scientifically unsupported. Griffin used a disclaimer stating "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery."

Note that I suggest a first editing run-through. Readability up to 48. Word count 225 Now looking for what is "most important" for a reader in the lead of any BLP.

G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, filmmaker and lecturer. He focusses on a wide range of controversial topics including alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, and politics.

He started as a child actor, and was later an assistant announcer for an NPR station at the University of Michigan, from which he graduated in 1953 with a Bachelor of Science degree.

His writing career began with Fearful Master, published in 1964. It focusses on the United Nations (UN) and what Griffin theorizes as the structure of the UN and how it functions. He also started producing videos on the same topics.


 * Love it the brevity!! I would support it without hesitation.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  22:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin wrote The Creature From Jekyll Island, (1994), which explores the history and goals of the Federal Reserve System in a critical manner. In the 1970s, Griffin wrote World Without Cancer (1974), about Laetrile, currently banned in the US as scientifically unsupported. Griffin noted "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery."

Second cut: 171 words, 49 RI. And so on. Always make sure to include phrases which are likely to be essential to reach compromise which should always be your goal. Do you see the process used? Collect (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You do it. They will only revert me. Something about a burr under their saddle. Cowabunga! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  22:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One horse in the race at a time is my view - let's see if it is a winner. Collect (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Charles B. Rangel
I know you don't want me posting here. And I usually wouldn't. But blind-reverting with a wrong rationale is not something I can let pass. I don't claim anywhere at Charles B. Rangel that the previous consensus was voided. My edit does not implement the previous before the previous consensus, but follows explicitly the instructions by Guy in his closing rationale. Which you opposed to have amended. SSo, now cool down and sit on it for a while, I would say a week of discussion on the talk page is appropriate. Anymore reverts, and ANI will have a thread about somebody who does not respect a closing rationale by an uninvolved admin. It's always in order to discuss, but not to act contrary to, consensus. Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The clear prior consensus in accord with biographical relevance was status quo ante on Rangel. And note I have asked Guy whether your edit was what he intended as a result, so your AN/I threat is inane at best, and a fairly serious deterrent to any future ArbCom hopes you might harbor.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you drink a cup of ice-tea. And then: Certainly, Rangel was one of the few pages where the previous consensus was implemented. And it was the example mentioned in the RfC. So I started right there. I trust you see my reasons, I don't do anything randomly. First you oppose my asking for clarification, and insist that the closing "was fine", now you ask Guy about what it meant? Well, I'm sure we'll sort it out one day. But please remember: Discuss first, revert later; and revert only if there's a reason to do so. Then we can remain wiki-friends. And now I'll take my leave from your talk page again. Kraxler (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are the only one implementing anything, the cup of tea should be yours. The bullshit that the RfC did not affect the prior RfC was clearly that --your apparent and primary intent appears to have been to make that specific edit.  Cheers.  Collect (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my intent is to implement the new format, per consensus, at all Congressmen pages. Rangel was just the fisrt step required under the instructions of the closer. I'll add more examples soon, let's say one per day, to test the ground, and see whether there's opposition, or whether there's acceptance, which doesn't mea whether you oppose or accept. The closer saw clear consensus for the new proposal, he only thought there was not enough people opining. Since you already opined at the RfC, your opinion becomes irrelevant for this process, it's known. The intention is to get wider input. I suggest you leave the battlefield, and start thinking about the issue. As I said, I'm always willing and ready to discuss anything. But I'm not a big friend of personal attacks, it's not nice to tell somebody he's inane, threaten something about ArbCom (couldn't make heads or tails out of that passage of your previous post) or suspecting someone to have a hidden agenda with the sole intention to attack you or articles owned by you. I suggest you cease to discuss my person or my intentions and just discuss the merits of certain edits or formats, as related to Wikipedia, not as to who made them. Kraxler (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And I disagree. As for finding your own opinion "relevant" and my opinion "irrelevant" I also demur. The listing of a soup of district numbers and 'not listing the dates for which they are relevant, alas, seems rather a step backward in utility for readers. I think you feel otherwise.   And I do not own any articles, and I find that particular claim offensive to the nth degree.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my post on Guy's talk page, this whole discussion will become moot in a short time. And, as an experienced editor, you should know better than start forum shopping right away when you don't like something. Opening a thread on NewYorkBrad's talk page, and pester him after he declined to act, and opening an RfC concerning the just closed RfC are not helpful moves. Kraxler (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy said he did not intend for you to act as you did. That seems to go well beyond the cautious approach I advocated is pretty clear.  And RfCs are a proper course for dispute resolution, as you know. Collect (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A closing rationale that is first said to be fine, and then needs to be "interpreted" or "explained" with vague statements by the closer, and which then needs a new RfC to try to establish the meaning of it, speaks for itself. Let's call a truce for now. Guy having declined to unclose the RfC, the case will be reported at ANI tomorrow. I'm gathering evidence in the meanwhile, and you're welcome to comment there as soon as it is on. Let's rest it here for now. Kraxler (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the proposed modification? Collect (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a "proposed modification", it's a full-fledged amendment. Thanks for pointing it out. The last word has not been spoken yet, we can be sure. As I said, since JzG asked me politely to have his close reviewed, I'll do so. By the way, could you tell me, why 14 people are enough to establish consensus to a change on a template that is "transcluded on nearly ninety thousand pages" (Does he really think there have been 90,000 congressmen since 1789? Well,...) but 20 people can not. Well, never mind, he shall answer that at ANI, in due time, I suppose. Kraxler (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(od) Can you tell me why you went into full fledged edit war mode? Wikipedia routinely has RfCs decided by fairly small numbers - and that is how it has always been when a cogent argument that the "old way" males no sense at all is made. Collect (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit war mode? Could you explain what you mean by that? Is there an edit-war going on somewhere? Kraxler (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any threat on the order of "one more edit and this goes to AN/I" sure sounds like that poster has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality -- just as accusing admins willy-nilly of being WP:INVOLVED and making accusations on their talk pages is not all that likely to persuade them of anything at all. Verbum sapiens. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can remember, there was first one revert by you, with a misleading edit summary, and then one revert by me with an explanation on the talk page. Could you point me to a guideline which says that is an edit-war? I asumed you made a mistake. The strong wording was only meant to make you look at the talk page, because your revert was a knee-jerk blind-revert, not covered by the edit summary. And it served its purpose, no more reverts, discussion started... Kraxler (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Higher and Deeper then? You now accuse me of a "misleading edit summary"?   It was per instructions at Template:Infobox officeholder.     Will you note the instructions there?   I shall refresh your memory:
 *  Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.
 * Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I stated in my edit summary when I changed the format "changed box under instructions from the closing rationale at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox" (my bolding). That makes it clear that I was not claiming that any previous consensus was voided, but that I followed the instruction to do a trial of the new format. Why does one need to explain the obvious to you all the time? Kraxler (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read your posts before hitting enter - if anyone wrote to you with that tone, what would be your response? Be glad I do not respond as I suspect most people would.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case declined
Hi Collect, this is a note to let you know that the Sam Harris BLP Arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Major surprise. Collect (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MIT Science Fiction Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noreascon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Project for the New American Century
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Project for the New American Century. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Project for the New American Century
Hi Collect,

I know you and Ubikwit were arguing about this before I barged into the debate today, but since I'm now involved - can I request that you reword the statement of the RFC? Ubikwit is the one saying the quote should be removed as UNDUE, but that doesn't properly characterize my position here. My position, as I've stated several times on the talk page, is that there's no need to quote Meacher in such length when the article could simply state his opinions, and use the sources I linked (and any other reliable sources anyone cares to dig up) as a counterpoint. As I've already said repeatedly, I've got no problem with a statement acknowledging his views about 9-11: I simply see no need for a lengthy quote from the horse's mouth. That article is already a huge mess of over-long quotes, which I fully intend to continue cutting down/summarizing/condensing once the AFC is resolved.Fyddlestix (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you reread the ArbCom shopping done by Ubikwit and all his posts in the last month at AN/I.  I also ask you to give me a little more credence than you have so far. Ubikwit only wants what he agrees with in any article, even where the same source has material diametrically opposed to his position.  I had suggested Meacher was a rather poor source in the first place but he insisted on using him, so use him we shall -- and using him showing his actual and accurate position.  Pushing 9/11 conspiracies is, IMHO,  pushing WP:FRINGE to the breaking point.Collect (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know (or care) what the deal is between you and Ubikwit, that's irrelevant to the discussion we're having on the PNAC page. Since you seem unwilling to change it per my request, I've added an alternative statement to the RFC as this section of WP:RFC indicates that I have a right to do. Nothing personal, I just don't think your statement correctly characterized the question being debated or my views on the matter.Fyddlestix (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI I've posted a link to the RFC over at the NPOV noticeboardFyddlestix (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I rather think you should consider the temperament of an editor who told an admin: @xxxx You are a block-happy admin tool, and you are not welcome on this page after this block expires or is lifted. I hope that is also "crystal clear". Fuck off. and similar cases of moderate incivility to a great number of editors, and not just with me.
 * In at least one case, his comments had to be oversighted they were so far off the wall. He made a "legal threat" to an Arbitrator, of all things (read his talk page).  "Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=613730106" shows an editor accusing me specifically of tag teaming! ("But if there does have to be sanctions, my view would be they are most deserved by Collect, for edit warring as part of a tag team.") and the like.   Collect (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

American Left Arbmin adcom wikidrama thing
Hi! Wasn't that fun? I noticed the RfC is still open at the talk page. Check out my user page for the play-by-play. When I come back in 2017, if you want to take the article back from the other team again, just let me know! I'll claim it for a day or two and then your team can have it again. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could refer to the page User:Flying_Jazz inside Talk:American Left. I've mentioned it to you and Ghostofnemo, but The Four Deuces, Ubikwit, and others looking in at the RfC might not have seen it yet. I regard Wikipedia as a sortakinda semi-closed community of encyclopedia-makers, and the four of you seem to have more experience here than I do at discussing political matters. Maybe the four of you could work something out or, if you're patient, help could arrive before my return in 2017. Flying Jazz (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm considering heading over to some editors on the German Wikipedia with the pdf at . They may enjoy my userpage after I point out to them the predicament that you, Ghostofnemo, The Four Deuces, and Ubikwit, and others seem to be having at Talk:American Left. That's probably against some rule, but it could be the case that we English speakers at Wikipedia might not be able to figure such things out for ourselves. If the Germans aren't willing or able to help, at least they'll be amused by the situation. It shouldn't be too hard to find French translations of similar things. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I'll save the French for later. After the Germans, it will be the Swedes! Or maybe I'll start with the Swedes instead of the Germans. There are so many options, and it's difficult to know what's best. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I find German easier than French -- never learned much other than God Jul in Swedish. Because of the nature of a two party system, neither party can really get too far from the center, while some foreign nations seem to have almost no one actually be in the center at times <g>. Collect (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I understand the Swedish mentality and Swedish idea of fun because I've known more Swedes. They're more likely to have that very appealing do-what-you-like mentality. That Pewdiepie guy really likes video games. That's why so many young people in the US watch him. Watching someone do what they enjoy is enjoyable! Other Swedes really like words and ideas. They might enjoy what I'm doing here. Or maybe not. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ingmar Bergman movies are lots of fun. TFD (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well...none of the Swedes I've met were like Ingmar Bergman movies. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. On second thought, the few Swedes I've gotten to know well actually were like Ingmar Bergman movies. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no difference between the scope of the article and what Norman Birnbaum writes. TFD (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you writing about the scope of the current article's lead or the scope of the current article's body? The two seem very different now! Have you seen User:Flying Jazz ? Flying Jazz (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead provides the scope of an article/summarizes what is in an article. You have never explained what you mean by "elements...who believe radical equality can be accommodated into existing capitalist structures."  Who are they?  TFD (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess...depending on exactly what's meant by radical equality and existing capitalist structures, they might be a huge majority of the US population or they might not even exist at all. How am I supposed to know? I was just citing Buhle correctly. You're the one who found The Encyclopedia of the American Left and cited it incorrectly the first time. Don't you know who they are? Flying Jazz (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So you added text to the lead without knowing what it meant or how it might affect the scope of the article. And if you do not know what the source meant, how do you know you have paraphrased it correctly?  It seems to me that type of action while likely to get a reaction from other editors is unlikely to improve the article, which puts it on a par with trolling.  TFD (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood me. I know what the words mean. I know how to paraphrase. I'm thrilled that I got a reaction from other editors. You are confusing the meaning of words with the identity and the size of the subgroups of the US population depicted by the words. Words describe ideas, not who "they" are or aren't. Engage with text. Engage with ideas. I recommend that you stop worrying, for now at least, about exactly who Buhle meant by "they." That's not a matter for the lead. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or engage using precise claims backed up by specific reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Buhle's encyclopedia prefaces—after correcting the verification failure—are a reliable, specific, scope-defining secondary source for a precise claim about ideological scope. I presume that's why TFD chose to use the outdated preface from 2010 to 2015. Other reliable secondary sources include claims about demographic scope, but they are outside my area of interest or knowledge. Hence the "How am I supposed to know?" comment above. Fortunately, EllenCT has pointed out a number of specific reliable secondary sources about the demographic identity of the American Left in the Talk page recently. But, as usual, certain editors conveniently ignore and misrepresent plain text and references that are intended to serve the reader. My apologies if I'm violating some talk-page rule thingie for writing here this week. I freely confess to cluelessness about certain wikirules. Flying Jazz (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not just focus on one clause?
The final clause of the lead of American Left used to be:
 * ...Americans frequently use the term "left-wing" to refer to radicalism or even liberalism..

It was unsourced. It had been there from 2010 when TFD created the article until my edits a couple weeks ago. When multiple editors, one after another, complained about the entire article in the talk page, they were ignored repeatedly in the most absurd ways. Small changes to the unsourced sentence were reverted. A vandal blanked the page and replaced it with "This is BS." You and TFD (mostly TFD) defended that unsourced sentence in that article for five years until I removed it as part of my edits that you then reverted with "BRD without prejudice" language, returning unsourced, laughably POV material. Then after a short time with Ubikwit and Ghostofnemo, the final clause in the lead briefly became:
 * ...the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party is almost evenly divided between left-of-center liberals and more centrist moderates.

Aren't the four of you aware of how deliciously hypocritical and hilariously pathetic you seem as you all grasp at straws to get your way? When you now write "engage using precise claims backed up by specific reliable sources," can you hear people who want to build an encyclopedia laughing at you? Flying Jazz (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Swedes will be amused. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Project for the New American Century. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm   X 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I did not edit war on that page, and did not ask Ubikwit to be blocked either, I do not know what else I can do here. I dealt with him politely, and that is about all I can do. I would point out.moreover, that Ubikwit has a couple of active "final warnings" for his apparent battleground attitude on at least four areas, noting his multiple current topic bans. I further note that some of my edits were absolutely pursuant to WP:BLP. I can plead guilty to letting him have plenty of rope, but that is about it. Cheers to all. Collect
 * Yes you did edit war. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am certain I edit warred by that definition. My reasoning about WP:BLP and how I got to PNAC is below. I shall continue to hold firm beliefs about categorizing people, and about using opinion sources to categorize people, and I suggest that is proper on my part. I also suggest PNAC be protected. I also point out that included material which had been specifically removed as WP:SYNTH and violative of WP:BLP as making a claim in Wikipedia's voice via a "table" of guilt by association. The person making those BLP violating claims was warned  on 24 Feb for BLP violation and edit war,  on 17 Feb for BLP discretionary sanctions, etc. and adding "guilt by association" to an article subject to WP:BLP certainly applies. I shall in future still remove "guilt by association" and "labelling by religion without self-identification" claims pertaining to BLPs. Collect

Why did you block Collect for a week when it's clear that there were other guilty parties involved in the content dispute? Collect did breach 3RR but so did one or two others by the looks of it? I don't think blocking for a week is and not so much as a warning to the others is the solution here. I think a page protect and encouragement to discuss on the talk page would have been more productive. Then if they continue dish out blocks, forgive me if I've missed anything but that's how it initially seems to me..♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WRT seeking consensus, I assiduously used the noticeboards and RfC dispute resolution process in accord with policy and guidelines. Collect (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I do have some concern with regard to Ubikwit suggesting that another editor now get busy ("the more you get accomplished in the interim, the better" sounds far too close to seeking assistance in unbalancing that article entirely) on the article  in  question, and trust that such acts will be monitored. I would also point out that his I/P topic ban specifically included talk pages - and he did not remove any of his posts on the talk page, and that a topic ban bars any edits - which he certainly violated. Self-reverting a revert when one has made other edits is not a cure and the edits appear on its face to be in violation of his topic ban, alas. Collect (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) After a mere 2 hours - 6K added to article, and the 9/11 conspiracy category is removed, as is the "see also" for it. As is a reference which dated back to early 2007 in the article (but which likely was not useful IPOF) Collect (talk)
 * Firstly, I provided a detailed breakdown of a protracted edit war between you and Ubikwit on that page and linked to it in your block log, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about. Second, this edit warring block takes no position on the merits of either editor's position in the content dispute, but I did spend a considerable amount of time reading the relevant discussions and I didn't see any sort of consensus that Ubikwit was acting disruptively and needed to be reverted by you. Plenty of arguing, not much agreement at all. Thirdly, you seem to have a habit where you throw out arguments and excuses and blame left and right but act as if you can do no wrong, that you're right no matter what and that your opponent is hellbent on destroying the encyclopedia and you're only trying to prevent that. But your actions simply don't reflect that. I actually always had a positive impression of you and certainly didn't expect to be blocking you for a week, but after a couple hours reviewing your AN3 report I was pretty surprised by the behavior I found and came to the conclusion that this is what was necessary. And you've completely victimized yourself in reponse, admitting exactly no wrongdoing except "letting him have plenty of rope". You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring.  Swarm   X 03:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather think you ought to have noted my steps taken in proper dispute resolution including timely noticeboard and RfC usage. I regret acting in a manner which led you to believe that I was seeking disruption,  as such was assuredly not my intent.  I do tend to take WP:BLP quite seriously, and react too strongly at times when I feel that BLP is being violated - I edit with the same principles for Kim Jong-un as for editing anyone else - political values are not the basis of my editing positions.  or that I make no apologies at all, just that I likely should have tempered my responses further - and likely should return to my position of avoiding the dramah boards utterly.    That said, and noting the only purpose of a block is for prevention and not for punishment,  I shall avoid any ANEW complaints for at least three months, and likely longer as that venue is not conducive to collegial editing.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently "edit war" for me consists of a total of two edits. Edit war for Ubikwit required 17 edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More evidence of partisan bias on Wikipedia? If there was an edit war occurring, why only ban one party, and not all parties involved if banning is punishment of edit warring. If there are only two reverts in a 24 hour period as states, but 17 reverts by  as Collect states, why only ban Collect? Granted I am only seeing one side here, but something doesn't look right.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should then look at other sides. User: Ubikwit was also blocked, and User:Swarm linked to his analysis of the edit war two comments up. Assuming we can all count to three, there are reasonable interpretations of the record that disagree with the one chosen by Collect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am glad you can find an implication of seeking biological warfare and genocide is not a BLP issue, and that "guilt by association" lists and tables are not a BLP issue. You might, however, note that the material has now been completely removed from the article, which might suggest that others did, indeed, find it a violation of WP:BLP just as Ubikwit's earlier labelling of folks as "Jewish" and PNAC as primarily Jewish have been found to be violations.  Collect (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is in reply to my comment, you have read a lot more into it than I did say (and intend to say). If it is not, I suggest you change the indentation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is directly apropos to the actual import of what you wrote.   The material which was properly removed on BLP grounds, and where the edit summary so stated about BLP grounds,  is not "edit war" - in fact it is required by WP:BLP and that material included an entire slew of "guilt by association" material, and also included an implication of seeking genocide, with the "balance" being that the group denied it.    If George Gnarph had a BLP, and it said he supported genocide, and that he denied supporting genocide,would you find that to meet WP:BLP?  Collect (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

How I ended up at PNAC
Just about eighty years ago, a nation decided that anyone with even a single Jewish grandparent was officially "Jewish."

Wikipedia has WP:BLPCAT saying we will not follow suit.

I found an editor was, alas, doing what we say we will not do. Labelling people as Jewish because of their parents and grandparents.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217[ shows such a case where I did not "drop the stick" - (OK, I've restored the infobox category of religious affiliation per this consensus, and added some text to the article. Please check it out, Joe Klein) I was outlasted - the editor gave up on saying Klein was of Jewish religion - but stuck out for "Jewish ethnicity".

The exact same issue arose for Sam Harris (author). Here that editor used: Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state to label a well-known atheist as Jewish.  " I think that the quote by Sayeed is not tantamount to Wikipedia categorizing Harris, and it is mentioned in the article that Harris' mother is Jewish, etc"  and so on at great length.

Robert Kagan   showing the editor iterating the labelling of a person as "Jewish".

Neoconservatism  added a section onDual loyalty. "What make neocons most dangerous are not their...calling everyone and his cousin an anti-Semite, but the leftist revolutionary fury they express. and questioning how anyone could mistake them for conservatives." (sourced to the ever RS "lewrockwell.com) "Critics from both the left and right have assailed neoconservatives for the role Israel plays in their policies on the Middle East."  show tyoical edits to that article implicitly and explicitly linking "neocons" to Israel and Jews.  "Your implied suggestion that the biggest controversy in the history of neoconservatism, that is, the question of "dual loyalty" of Jewish neoconservatives", not be covered on Wikipedia is somewhat incomprehensible, and contravenes Wikipedia content policies." was a reply to me on the article talk page. "Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!.I'm not impressed. You may not disparage the publication of an academic by a world-class academic press without good reason. And yet, you have provided none. You attack her assertion of "well-known", but there are numerous sources that discuss Frederick (not to mention Robert) Kagan in relation to the topic of neoconservatism, and they are likely to increase." to another editor who disagreed with him.

I have not been involved in "Jewish articles" but I note the editor has often and with great vigour engaged on the topic of "Jewishness" in a great many venues. has " The overall question of Palestinians in the Palestinians territories would seem to be much more difficult, and perhaps intractable at present, but it seems clear that there is no basis in modern history to include Jews, let alone the anachronistic "Israelites" on the list

Requests_for_comment/Ubikwit is pretty clear with comments such as: "in reference to my discussing Zionism as proxy colonization, and then check pages 48-49 of the above-cited reference. There are sentences in which Zionist colonization is described in no uncertain terms, and that i a valid academic source. One sentence states, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".,

I believe WP:BLPCAT applies with full force for any use of material asserting that "part Jews" or "Mischlings" are "Jewish" for categorization or description, and shall not waver on that firm belief.

Those who demur are certainly not "anti-Semitic" in any way whatsoever, but they do not seem to understand the reasoning behind BLPCAT and the necessity for BLPCAT. But that does not mean I accept the premise that we should promote any belief that Jews have "dual loyalty" issues in the United States and that anyone who has even one Jewish grandparent is automatically "Jewish." Collect (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: The implicit accusations that PNAC sought biological weapons to commit genocide is going away. As are most of the "9/11 Truther" claims -- finally. Thank you. Collect (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dissent (or agreement if you find my extremism here a reasonable stance) below please:
Collect, first I agree that categorizing someone as Jewish unless 1 - they have so self identified or 2 - Their religion/ethnicity has been a major issue in multiple highly reliable sources is completely inappropriate. Pigeonholing people based solely on 'blood' is very near to evil. Extremism is never a reasonable stance unless facing an existential threat. If you ever think something on Wikipedia can be classified as such it is time to quit. While we have only recently interacted I have read many of your BLPN threads over a few years and I have come to respect you for taking principled stands. That said, often I find your arguments, particularly about BLP, pedantic and non-constructive. I am by no means saying you are the only one who makes such arguments. BLP does not require us to censor encyclopedic content. Finally you went Godwin up there. Really!?!?... In all seriousness though you need to reword and strike a lot of the above text because you have effectively called Ubikwit an anti-Semite and compared him to a Nazi. Considering all of your worry about implying connections/guilt in articles this is ironic. No matter what your disagreement with him is such implications are completely inappropriate here and reflect quite badly on you. I am not agreeing with his edits, I have not read them. I am just saying whatever they are your implications are inappropriate. You asked for input and I gave you mine. I hope we are able to work together in the future. I am sure we will often disagree but we seem to have common interests and I always respect, if not agree with, what you have to say. JBH (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The bit about declaring anyone who has any Jewish blood was, in fact, the argument made by the person adding that category to multiple persons. Ubikwit is not an "anti-Semite"  at all, and I have never called him one.  What I do note is that he apparently found the arguments about "neocons" and "dual loyalty"  to be a tad  more convincing than I found them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, good to know no accusation was intended. I agree the duel loyalty issue is not something for Wikipedia until a lot of people in RS start writing about it. My opinion is that people will start talking about loyalty to a religious group (Jewish, Muslim, Dominionist Christian, Nationalist Hindu or whatever) as reason for disloyalty to a person's normative national loyalty in either a nationalist or counter-nationalist context in the coming years. Even if that does happen it likely would not belong in the friggin PNAC article! Enjoy or night/day per your timezone. Cheers. JBH (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The other tidbits included implications that PNAC might seek genocide using biological weapons, etc.   and the wondrous array of 9/11 conspiracy in the mix.    Personally, I do not think editors who promote such claims are greatly needed by Wikipedia at all. Collect (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch
Would you prefer I wait for the RfC to close and the BLPN to archive before starting an ANI string? gave me a "Thank" for suggesting it and nobody else has made any comments, so I think that's the right way to go. If there is a content dispute, I don't actually know what it is. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

BS claims which are counter-factual
An editor asserts "He has admitted to following me to the PNAC article" which is pure and utter bullshit. Such claims by editors which are sufficiently personal attacks" do not make me inclined to send out Wikilove messages. He adds " and he did the same on Joe Klein" which is also counterfactual.   His first edit there was 5 Feb where he  labelled Klein a "Jew".  I pointed out that "nndb.com" is not a "reliable source"  because of claims about Klein being Jewish in the Neoconservatism article - not following the editor but following the unsourced or weakly sourced claims in a BLP.  I follow WP:RS/N where nndb.com has repeatedly failed.  Nothing to do with the accusations made about me.

shows one of the Neocon edits:
 * Of these, many were from the Jewish intellectual milieu of New York City. 

If that is not specifically trying to link a group as "Jewish" I do not know what would qualify.

The claim that an editor "improves" articles in such a manner, I find risible.

First edit on Harris was:
 * His writings on atheism have been criticized in various publications, with the criticisms including accusations of Islamophobia and racism.  

Most people understand that including asides about a person being accused of racism and Islamophobia are "contentious claims". The editor then removed "philosopher and neuroscientist" only to have to give in as a result of   Talk:Sam_Harris_(author) where that sort of claim had been dealt with. Note that I was in that article long before the other editor appeared there. And comments like thinking "But "racism" is not my claim here about Harris. Irrational anti-Muslim animus is" is a reasonable basis for editing any BLP do not assure me that an editor is seeking to even abide by WP:NPOV much less "improve" articles. So I proposed an RfC Talk:Sam_Harris_(author) where the apparent consensus again is not in accord with the "improvements."

A third editor pointed out (lest anyone think this is animus on my part)
 *  Repeat all you want; Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner.

In short I regard the claims made against me that I somehow picked out any editor to chase to be silly, inane, and unworthy of being bandied. But when an editor cites his rejected BLP violations as "improvements" - that goes a mile too far. Collect (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

US
I am off-line for a bit - but kindly note that my wording as last presented does not anme any of the territories - thus no need for "Commonwealth" of anything.
 * The United States .... is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction of fifty states, a federal district, five major territories and several uninhabited islands. The republic has a President elected within the fifty states and a federal district, frequently called the United States by itself.

Is quite fine. Collect (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The last clause in that sentence is very awkward. It makes it sound like DC is often called the United States. I am not sure what it is trying to say. JBH (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I.e. The republic has a President elected within the fifty states and a federal district, frequently called the United States by itself  could be instead:
 * The president of the United States is elected by an electoral college chosen by the fifty states and the federal district.
 * Would that be clear enough? or
 * The republic has a President elected within the fifty states and a federal district. This area is frequently called the United States by itself.
 * Although I had suspected most people would read the antecedent as being the full area described, and few would think a "federal district" would ever be called "States" where we have "states" in the preceding phrase <g>. Collect (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh... I see what you were saying. You were differentiating the States+DC from all of the States+DC+territories. Correct? Either of the alternates read better. The problem in the first sentence was the singular 'itself' which would refer back to the last singular noun. It was likely clearer in context but was enough to make me go eh?? when read in isolation. JBH (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That works. However, I don't think that the last sentence needs to be in the lead, that can be in the Government section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason is that this is precisely where the arguments centered -- "what is the United States?" where some insisted on the broader and some on the narrower construction. The aim is to cover both views as concisely and accurately as possible. Collect (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wolin discussions:

Is the US a totalitarian society using Wolin's theory of "inverted totalitarianism"? Or is that theory WP:FRINGE?

 * Collect, please read inverted totalitarianism. Be seeing you... Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And reading a fringe view rarely convinces me of the correctness of the fringe view.  I would, moroever, suggest you read and abide by the suggestions in WP:PIECE which apparently a few editors do not think is reasonable,  sad to relate.  I especially find any statement that the US is becoming a clone of Nazi Germany to be abhorrent, and indicative of major problems in the word view of those holding such a point of view, and even more a problem when editors promote that world view as thought it were  fact on Wikipedia.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're using the term "fringe" as a thought-terminating cliché, not in the context of its original usage. There is nothing, I repeat again in case you didn't read it the first time -- there is nothing in our article on the concept of inverted totalitarianism that can be described as "fringe" in any way shape or form.  This is, in fact, leigitimate, mainstream scholarship, and if you think differently, I challenge you to prove otherwise.  You really must stop misusing the language this way because it looks like POV pushing.  Your misuse of the term "fringe" appears to be a way for you to silence dissent and criticism.  The scholarship behind the concept of inverted totalitarianism is sound.  The direction the United States (and other countries) have taken over the last fifty years has been questioned by legitimate writers and academics, and you cannot silence them by using the word "fringe" in this way. Sheldon Wolin is not a "fringe" author, nor are the many academics who support his work. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Questia doe not find Wolin widely accepted. 2 reviews in journals only. One site which does push him is the notorious "globalresearch.ca" fringe theory site (see WP:RS/N for a bunch of discussions about that!)   And of course AlterNet, which even manages to accuse G. W. Bush of instituting a Nazi totalitarian regime in the US, and says that technology is to blame for this new totalitarianism. Sorry - WP:FRINGE applies. Michel Chossudovsky has very colourful views to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on his theory, however, there are 89 results in JSTOR which discuss Wolin. So he is certainly a mainstream scholar. Jbh (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How many of them are about this "theory" of "inverted totalitarianism"? How many mention him and not the theory?    I found none using the term other than those ascribed to him.   The issue is not of "lots of people mention him because of a number of his books" but "how many adopt this theory" and that, I would note, is  minimal.   As in "essentially none."  Collect (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see:
 * The Nation (you're not going to argue they're FRINGE, are you?) printed an article by Wolin about his theory.
 * His book is published by Princeton Uni Press (Peer Reviewed, one of the most prestigious academic presses in the country).
 * The book was reviewed by other academics in journals like European Political Science, Political Science Quarterly, Perspective on Politics, International Affairs, and others. Those are direct links to the review - note none of them characterize him as a nutbar, and several of them are very positive.
 * His book won the Lannan Award in 2008.
 * Sorry Collect but there's no way in hell you can spin this as FRINGE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are [//www.jstor.org.ezalumni.libraries.psu.edu/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22inverted+totalitarianism%22&prq=Sheldon+Wolin&group=none&wc=off&hp=25&so=rel&fc=off 21 articles indexed in JSTOR] mentioning "inverted totalitarianism" (not including Front/Back Matter results). Again. no comment on the theory but it is being talked about by main stream academics. If you are interested in any of the articles for an article here I will be happy to provide it. Jbh (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)I went through your list of reviews - not a single one endorsed the book, and one was aghast at the Nazi imagery used at the start of this book. Find scholars using the theory and supporting the theory - not reviewers who seem puzzled by the rather partisan material: Yet, Wolin's interpretation of the transformation seems to depict a rather exaggerated vision of the ‘poor state’ of democracy when contending that the actual direction of contemporary American politics is the very opposite of what the political leadership, the mass media and think tank oracles claim that it is the world's foremost exemplar of democracy.,
 * Wolin: "What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The question for citizens is: Which way?" appears to be an election screed at best.
 * Wolin reminds us that the image of Adolf Hitler flying to Nuremberg in 1934 that opens Leni Riefenstahl's classic film "Triumph of the Will" was repeated on May 1, 2003, with President George Bush's apparent landing of a Navy warplane on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. sounds not quite neutral in political tone nor imagery.  ."
 * Globalresearch.ca has been mentioned at WP:RS/Nand generally in a quite unfavourable light.
 * Wolin: The Republicans have emerged as a unique phenomenon in American history of a fervently doctrinal party, zealous, ruthless, antidemocratic and boasting a near majority. As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant, the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology. In ceasing to be a genuine opposition party the Democrats have smoothed the road to power of a party more than eager to use it to promote empire abroad and corporate power at home. Bear in mind that a ruthless, ideologically driven party with a mass base was a crucial element in all of the twentieth-century regimes seeking total power. 
 * In short - a partisan screed, not adopted by mainstream academics.
 * BTW, "prize winning" applies to many books found to be wrong, plagiarized, embarrassing, and hoaxes. (Goodwin, Haley and others even had Pulitzers).  In scholarly areas, what counts is acceptance by other mainstream scholars - and that has not been shown here. You need peer-reviewed articles showing acceptance of the "theory" and that is how scholars work. Collect (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're cherry picking quotes:
 * The first review you quote also calls his book "persuasive," and suggests that "Wolin has written the most empirically updated, theoretically informed and generally persuasive analysis on the transformation of the US politics away from self-government, rule of law, egalitarianism and thoughtful public discussion. Democracy Incorporated mounts to a courageous and powerful critique of the path towards which American politics might be leaning." It's pretty normal for academic book reviews to point out both the flaws and the strengths of the work; they're not supposed to "endorse" anything, and being "endorsed" in book reviews (if that was even a thing) is hardly a reasonable standard for being considered "mainstream."
 * You might see the second quote as "election screed," but how is that equivalent to being FRINGE? People get partisan around election time, that doesn't make them nutbars.
 * The review that you picked the quote about Reifenstahl out of concludes that the book is "quite an achievement," if "also misleading about the transformative potentials of our world." It's a mixed review.
 * I didn't mention (or link) anything from Global Research (and never would) so not sure why you're bringing that up.
 * You conveniently left out the review from International Affairs, which notes that "proper reading of the book will make it clear that Wolin is far from implying a moral or even political equivalence these regimes and the US."
 * Completely setting apart the actual merits of the book (I haven't read it), you're setting the an impossibly high standard for considering something "mainstream," and a ridiculously low bar for dismissing something as FRINGE. It doesn't matter whether the book reviews are positive or negative, the point is that it was deemed worthy of serious consideration and review by multiple legitimate academics and journals. That it was deemed worthy of publication by PU Press. Truly FRINGE scholars, books, and ideas do not get that kind of attention and that treatment.
 * If you are only going to accept something as "mainstream" if academics "adopt" them then you're going to be waiting a long time, because it's not academics job to "adopt" a singular view. If anything, their job is to disagree about stuff. So the fact that some reviewers criticized Wolin does not mean that they think he’s unworthy of reading, unworthy of attention, or a crackpot.
 * Honestly, it kind of worries me that you don’t seem to see that the distinction between “right” and “wrong” (in the sense of “I agree” vs “I don’t agree”) is completely different from the distinction between “mainstream” and “fringe.” Reasonable, rational, non-crank people hold a wide range of views. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GlobalResearch is indeed a publisher of the Chalmers Johnson review - which you appear to cite. Second, there is no sign that the "theory" has any actual acceptance or endorsement from mainstream academics.  Third, "mixed reviews" specifically do not in any way imply acceptance of a theory, as noted below.  Fourth, when an article is overtly partisan to an extreme extent, it is reasonable to call it a "screed". Especially when Hitler gets involved.   Fifth, read the discussion below.   Unless and until one can show some significant adoption or acceptance of such a throey, it is not "mainstream" at all.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I never linked you or cited the Chalmer's Johnson review - I may be mistaken, but it looks to me like you're the one that brought that up. More to the point; are you aware that an academic can't control who is reading their book or who reviews it, and that reviewing a book does not mean that the author supports your position?
 * As far as "acceptance," I'll repeat what I said before; in academia, no one view is ever "accepted" - getting "accepted" in academia is having your book published by a reputable press, having a professorship at a reputable university, and having your book reviewed in reputable journals. All of these are things that Wolin has done. That's all an academic needs to do to be regarded as a mainstream, reputable thinker whose ideas are worth considering.  Period. The "acceptance" that you keep holding up as something that Wolin lacks isn't something that exists in academia - scholars don't keep lists of "cannon" books anymore and they haven't done so for many many decades now. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Being "reviewed" especially when the reviews are mixed to put it charitably, does not make the thesis "mainstream."  That you say that "mainstream" as a concept is now non-existent in academia sounds like a position you should raise at WP:FRINGE and assert there.  I think the idea that "a person got this published by a major press, therefore his positions are mainstream" is interesting, but not the position taken in Wikipedia policy.  Until that content guideline is changed and WP:NPOV is amended, Wikipedia follows what they say.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, again: I didn't say that academia doesn't have a concept of mainstream. Of course it does. My point was that the higher standard of "acceptance" which you keep suggesting is something Wolin lacks doesn't exist - at least not as the boundary between fringe and non-fringe. Academia's main gatekeeper against "fringe" people and ideas is the process of peer review. Wolin's book was peer reviewed and published by a reputable press that would never publish truly "fringe" ideas. It is not fringe. If we only regarded works that were widely cited, or "adopted," or "accepted" - neither of which is really a "thing" in academia - then the list of "mainstream" books would be exceedingly small, and you'd be consigning huge numbers of scholars whose work is perfectly fine, but just never got much attention for whatever reason, to the "fringe" dustbin.  That's not how it works. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the three most promising cites from JSTOR (I skip the ones which want money from me):

Bell in Human Rights basically uses it as a plea for the election of Obama.

Giroux mentions Wolin briefly, and then goes on to rant about "zombie fascism" where the academics have been basically emasculated by the anonymous corporatism of the US and "far right thugs" etc. Do you consider this a strong academic source backing Wolin?

Brown equates neoliberalism and neoconservatism as each being de-democratizing positions - rather than aiming at Wolin's "totalitarianism", Davis says the two groups seem to cooperate in reducing the "rule of law" in favour of ad hoc agreements on some issues, that the apolitical neoliberals are inadvertently setting the stage for neoconservative authoritarianism based on "morality" (Davis does not seem to follow Wolin's path to Nazi analogues at all).

Strangely, Brown spends a lot of space on "Christianity", and seems to basically follow Harris' view of the value or lack thereof - saying the Christians on the right see government as a pastor to the populace, levelling her sights at that issue - rather than following Wolin's anger at "technology." In fact she only cites Wolin in fn 38 which is a discourse about some referring to US interventionism as "fascism" where she specifies she is concerned about the "faceless social and cultural forces" at work in current society. So she does not adopt Wolin for sure. She does imply that there is no "substantive left vision" which seems totally at odds with Wolin's views. Zero for three - and that is all I get at a time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like you found the articles I was going to note below. You can discount the why's and wherefores as much as you want but why these people cite the theory makes no difference just that they do. First please allow me to direct you to direct you to two comments made about Wolin. He is obviously not a fringe thinker. Pretty much anything he has to say is going to be of interest to academics. They may disagree with him but it is part of the discourse.

"Sheldon S. Wolin is perhaps the preeminent U.S. political theorist, and the publication of Tocqueville Between Two Worlds, a Festschrift, and an expanded edition of Politics and Vision provided the impetus for this article, which assesses Wolin's political theory to date." "When it first appeared in 1960, Politics and Vision had an extraordinarily important impact on the development of political philosophy in the United States."
 * Now here are some articles which discuss or cite his idea of 'inverted totalitarianism'. I am sure a deeper examination will show more and I am sure that 'inverted totalitarianism' is controversial.  I can see no way he or this particular theory can be considered FRINGE. PS ref [3] above might be of interest on some of the Neoconservative articles.
 * Jbh (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Jbh (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope -- when folks mention a theory and say it makes no sense, that does not count as supporting the theory. The NYT reported the WTC conspiracy theories - that does not make those theories "not fringe."  "Fringe" is determined by whether the mainstream scholars in the field support the theory.  In the case at hand, after reading quite a few pages, I can safely say that the mainstream scholars do not support it.  See WP:FRINGE -- it does not mean "wrong" - it does mean "the mainstream scholars do not support it". Collect (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the limitation of the use of 'inverted totalitarianism' as a theory requiring equal time, though I do not believe anyone was talking about that . Then I saw GScholar shows 346 cites [//scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=+Democracy+Incorporated%3A+Managed+Democracy+and+the+Specter+of+Inverted+Totalitarianism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C21&as_sdtp=] to A Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism - Nope not FRINGE not FRINGE at all I firmly object to classifying Woldin alongside Meacher. One is a complete nutbar while the other is an highly respected political theorist with a decades long track record. I guess we can agree to disagree however I do enjoy learning about new stuff like this and I do enjoy the debate. Cheers.Jbh (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any "googlecount" requires inspection - many instances are from laundry list bibliographies, and are not indications of the author agreeing with a theory. " This thesis will argue that Sheldon Wolin’s theory of democracy is conceptually similar to anarchist theory" is from a Master's thesis, etc.   Another example simply quotes Wolin - and nothing of meaning otherwise.  One at  has this really useful precis:
 * "John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo are two of the main thinkers in continental philosophy’s return to religion. This return is accommodated by the basic theoretical framework of irony, which is predominantly an unspoken determinant upon textual meaning. In this continental sense, irony affirms and negates the subject matter that it speaks about. Adopting this framework, Caputo and Vattimo suggest that a new Christian-irony is desirable to avert a collapse back into the violence that results from metaphysics, either modern or classical, by remaining in deconstruction’s loosely held wavering between theism and atheism. The question that remains to be proven, however, is whether their ironic method of writing is not inadvertently continuing the negative effect of the Nietzschean-Heideggerian paradigm by persisting with the literary style of writing that is intrinsic to it, even while openly refuting it by their affirmative Judeo-Christian surface content."
 * I do not have the foggiest idea what that means, but it has nothing to do with Wolin <g>. Again -- find actual major mainstream scholars - googlecounts are not all that great here. Collect (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You know that the page you linked has a direct link to the thesis itself, right? Check out page 13-14 - not only is Wolin discussed in depth, but there's a mega block-quote from him. Not only is this thesis citing Wolin, it's using Wolin as part of its theoretical premise/foundation. It seems unlikely that someone would get awarded an MA for giving that much attention (in their introduction, no less) to a "Fringe" scholar.  If anything, it speaks to his academic legitimacy. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! That looks like it was written by the bot I hope it is a bot!  that does Time Cube.  Yes, I agree that not all citations are equal but just as well we need to avoid a No true scholar  Defining a good cite.  issue. All I have access to is Google Scholar and I would be interested in what the commercial services have to say about that book's citations. My opinion remains, once something is solidly in the academic discourse, not being solidly derided, it is no longer FRINGE. It might be minor, contested, or even total crap.  I would say it is analogous to notability per WP:PROF. There is no need to explore the quality of cites there and determining cite quality can get sticky Although if a large percentage on the cites are like the one you quote.... damn, I thought I was having a stroke as all meaning dripped from my mind while I read that. <g> Jbh (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IOW, we need something which is remotely understandable agreeing with the guy to say his opinion is remotely near the mainstream. The usual technique is to find people using the term on their own.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe these might address your concerns. Per "... find people using the term on their own" we have."Mentan, T. (2013). Democracy for Breakfast. Unveiling Mirage Democracy in Contemporary Africa. African Books Collective. p.ix [//books.google.com/books?id=Kt4WAgAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=Breakfast.+Unveiling+Mirage+Democracy+in+Contemporary+Africa&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wi76VPoyhcKCBIvUg9AF&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Breakfast.%20Unveiling%20Mirage%20Democracy%20in%20Contemporary%20Africa&f=false]" Who devotes a couple of pages of his introduction to discussing 'inverted totalitarianism'. It has its own section. From Questia we have "125. As Molly Farneth has reminded me, chapter 13 of Wolin’s more recent book, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), appears to adopt a position somewhat closer to the one I am defending. On page 291, he refers to the need “to encourage and nurture a counterelite of democratic public servants” and argues that this counterelite can already be found to a large extent in “numerous nongovernmental organizations.” In effect, I am extending this thought, but at the expense of the “fugitive” democrat’s distaste for hierarchy as such." There is also this review on Questia which seems pretty positive. I believe these fulfill the criteria you earlier mentioned. I found several others on Questia who cite the book and/or term in their work as well but I stopped chasing them down after these three. I simply do not see how Wolin or 'Inverted Totalitarianism' can be considered fringe considering the current weight of evidence. Jbh (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * [//www.questia.com/read/120621197/blessed-are-the-organized-grassroots-democracy-in Blessed Are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America ] by Jeffrey Stout p.323 which favorable compares the theory to the authors own work.
 * [//www.questia.com/read/1P3-1596767561/democracy-incorporated-managed-democracy-and-the Archer, Jeff Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism ]

Frist - Archer is a review, and I previously noted it. It is not an endorsement at all of the "theory."

Stout in a footnote says "On page 291, he refers to the need “to encourage and nurture a counterelite of democratic public servants” and argues that this counterelite can already be found to a large extent in “numerous nongovernmental organizations.” In effect, I am extending this thought, but at the expense of the “fugitive” democrat’s distaste for hierarchy as such." Which is not a claim of any sort of support for the theory at all ... indeed, it has nothing to do with "inverted totalitarianism" per se.

Leaving the book from "Langaa Research and Publishing Common Initiative Group" which appears to primarily focus on books about Cameroon. It might have a minor problem in that it asserts that (Capitalism) "in an inherently unequal system" and thus Capitalism and Democracy are fundamentally incompatible. The preface dwells extensively on this particular premise - and that "elections" in such a nation are inherently undemocratic. While this is an interesting thesis, it appears based on an African view of elections not widely held otherwise. It is, however, using Wolin's words without using his stated theory. The preface then decries Western coverage of African elections and economies. It also says neololiberalism is the defacto position of capitalism, and that its agenda is to "create globalized states in Africa." This also has nothing actually to do with Wolin's theory either. And the position that "western democracy" is not what Africa needs is a clear position as well. If you wish to use this book, what it supports is not what Wolin states, and what this book supports is a strange version of "democracy" peculiar to Africa, and not "Western democracy" as a system.

Thus one should read more than just the Roman numeral pages ...  even reading just the first chapter of the book shows its use of terminology is aimed primarily at opposing free markets, opposing limiting government spending where large populations are poor,   railing at France for not supporting the CFAs and their economies rather than keeping a stable Euro,  and for keeping a limit on national overdrafts of those currencies (two different CFAs). And also blaming every UN agency in sight for abetting the devaluation of the currencies. Wolin is not within a mile of this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * D'accord. Last I checked, Stout and Dorrien were in theology schools, Henry Giroux at an ed school at Miami U of Ohio, etc. Somebody was cite writing about postmodernism and cultural theory. These are not presidential addresses published in the American Journal of Political Science or even featured reviews in Foreign Policy. LLAP,  Dear ODear ODear ( is a ) 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Vous parlez francais? (no cedilla on this keyboard)  And I only met Nimoy once, and Shatner several times ... LLAP. Collect (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that we have reached the No true scholar point I earlier feared. It makes no difference how a theory is used. It is addressed and used within the context of academic discourse, it is not ignored or disparaged. You are setting an a very high bar for what you consider mainstream. You finally pin yourself down to something you will accept with "...we need something which is remotely understandable agreeing with the guy to say his opinion is remotely near the mainstream. The usual technique is to find people using the term on their own." These are produced yet you say not good enough because they do not really address his theory. You wanted someone who was using the term on their own. A concept must be firmly in main stream scholarship before people start adapting a theory for their own use. Good social scientists do not regurgitate a theory and apply it by rote. They modify it to the conditions they are examining. Theories in the social sciences provide a paradigm for analysis not a rote way of figuring something out, except possibly for an undergrad.  Just as an example were I to use Inverted totalitarianism  Just heard about it this PM  to examine the socio-political tradjectory of the US over the next 5 years I would also be drawing on Social practice theory, Power cycle theory,  no article???  Keynesian Theory, Marxism  bleh, yuck but useful for some social dynamics , Realist IR Theory, Geopolitics and dollups of many other people's work. Mainly because I would need to re-frame Wolin's theory in terms of anthropology and international relations In all that Wolin would get a couple footnotes for his stuff but you would hardly recognize how I used him after I ran his concepts through all of the theoretical frameworks I use in my analysis. But his theory would have contributed significantly to the analysis. Whatever I came up with... that would be FRINGE. <g>  The point is there is no need, and no expectation, that when people are influenced by a writing or a theory for them to restate or slavishly apply the theory. It has helped them frame their analysis. If the theory were not used for framing or for the analytical it provides the end result would be different. That is what it means for a social science to be in the mainstream and that is what those 350+ cites I mentioned earlier indicate. Possibly you would give a firm definition of what kind of evidence you are looking for?  PS please do not mistake my frustration for anger. I have very much enjoyed our conversation although we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns. You do seem to be in the middle of interesting discussions though. Cheers.Jbh (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Africa book you cite, however, neither uses the theory within the book, nor uses the term in the preface in a manner remotely consistent with how Wolin presented the term.   It is, alas, an example of people using the term in buzzwordese, which is all too common when people are presenting controversial claims (like "western democracy can not work in Africa because African democracy has to be different entirely" or the like.)   As Arthur notes below - reviews do not mean the reviewer is adopting the theory,  nor is the claim "well the author was mainstream, therefore his new theory must be mainstream" hold water.  Chomsky has some mainstream linguistic theories, but that does not make his later writings "mainstream" at all.  Pauling got a Nobel in Chemistry, but that does not make his medical theories "mainstream."  As for iterating links to "no true scotsman" - the first time may be fun. Iterations show a lack of new arguments. Collect (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That a person or his views are discussed in mainstream scholarship does not make those views mainstream. I haven't (recently) looked at those specific views, but no legitimate case has yet been presented here that Wolin is NOT fringe.(Arthur Rubin)
 * Really?? Just what would you consider a "legitimate case"? Please, I am very curious. Jbh (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So far, other than the one rather strange Africa book, you have not presented anyone actually making arguments in support of the new theory. Find substantive uses where the scholars state that their findings agree with Wolin's theory.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I can tell, no examples have been provided for the theory being mentioned favorably, other than by Wolin, himself; there are a few tangential mentions or mentions using it to support something completely different; and one or two unfavorable mentions. If that is correct, it looks fringe.  If there weren't any of the last category, then the theory would just be non-notable, at least in detail; it would be possible that the existence of the theory might be notable, if non-academic sources exist.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Arthur and Collect, you are both acting silly and unreasonable. We don't have to prove that Wolin is not fringe, that would be like asking you to prove you aren't paid by the Koch brothers. The burden of proof lies on the claimant.  If you believe Wolin is fringe, then use the guideline to prove it.  Since neither of you can, the default position is that he's not fringe.  Arguing otherwise is shifting the burden.  You and Collect know this but you do it anyway.  In any case, Wolin's central thesis, that economic influence has weakened democracy in the US, is far from controversial or disputed.  This is a mainstream idea accepted by most scholars as legitimate and factual. Pretending otherwise is disturbing. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We each aver that he is likely WP:FRINGE after doing our "due diligence." I have given full cites for what I found and what I did not find.  And I suggest that "John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo are two of the main thinkers in continental philosophy’s return to religion. This return is accommodated by the basic theoretical framework of irony, which is predominantly an unspoken determinant upon textual meaning. In this continental sense, irony affirms and negates the subject matter that it speaks about. Adopting this framework, Caputo and Vattimo suggest that a new Christian-irony is desirable to avert a collapse back into the violence that results from metaphysics, either modern or classical, by remaining in deconstruction’s loosely held wavering between theism and atheism. The question that remains to be proven, however, is whether their ironic method of writing is not inadvertently continuing the negative effect of the Nietzschean-Heideggerian paradigm by persisting with the literary style of writing that is intrinsic to it, even while openly refuting it by their affirmative Judeo-Christian surface content" is either meaningless or as close thereto as any logician might desire.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, you appear very confused. What you have cited is a student thesis, in particular, a quote that has nothing to do with Wolin.  Now that I've corrected your mistake, I sincerely hope you will for once attempt to demonstrate that Wolin is "fringe" by citing a specific passage from the fringe guideline.  You cannot do this because Wolin isn't fringe.  What I've demonstrated is that you repeatedly misuse the fringe guideline to attack sources and content you personally disagree with, even when you haven't reviewed the source material!  Could you please stop doing this?  I brought up Wolin as one example of many.  Surely you can find at least one reliable source that casts Wolin as a fringe thinker?  That you cannot speaks volumes.  Your misuse of the fringe guideline is an attempt to frame any criticism or dissent of official narratives as "subversion".  This is a propaganda technique common to totalitarian societies. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually you are more likely confused from me iterating one of the JSTOR "sources" found by another editor and used to assure me that the Wolin theory was widely used. And yes - this paper was one of the ones in the JSTOR search results!  I unfortunately demur that such a usage proves that Wolin is widely considered to be in the mainstream with this new theory.  And I consider your accusations here to verge on the ragged edge of propriety -- and ask you recant some of your seeming allegations. And your assertion that I am using propaganda like a totalitarian would is abhorrent here, as is your snark that I must be being paid to edit.   I would ask you to note that accusing editors of being paid to edit is actionable, and that you should immediately strike out any such assertions or implications as being in violation of Wikipedia terms of service, policies and guidelines.   Now. Collect (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, please read what I wrote again. I'll copy it here so you don't have to look: "We don't have to prove that Wolin is not fringe, that would be like asking you to prove you aren't paid by the Koch brothers. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If you believe Wolin is fringe, then use the guideline to prove it.  Since neither of you can, the default position is that he's not fringe. Arguing otherwise is shifting the burden." This is not an accusation, this is an analogy, showing the fallaciousness of such accusations by way of example, not their veracity by way of assertion. In this case, the default position is that you are not paid by the Koch brothers, nor could one reasonably assume that you are based on an absence of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wolin's sideways and upside down inverted totalitarianism nonsense is fringe primarily because those that might be the polar opposite of that notion have not bothered to rebuttal it...because its ridiculous. Much like NIST's reluctance to entertain or waste time rebutting retarded 9/11 truther stuff. Lunatic fringe theories seem to be more and more common in the university system, thanks in no small part to discriminatory hiring procedures which eliminate anyone that doesn't like drinking the same Kool-Aid as the typical university imperial goof-trooper. Why Wolin chose to compare what he hates with Nazism or anything Nazi is obvious...by comparing something to what is almost universally decreed to be a reprehensible entity, it gives the thing they hate equal footing and helps provide distaste. These tenured professors are so amusing what with their cushy tenured jobs that they will never lose until someone uncovers them for plagiarism or willingly accepts their resignation after they are investigated for crackpot theories, or they simply murder and attempt to murder other members of their university after being denied tenure.--MONGO 07:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I already said above, Wolin's central thesis, that economic influence has weakened democracy in the US, is not fringe, it's mainstream discourse. I would encourage you to find something he said or wrote and a reliable source that casts him as fringe to support your argument.  I have a question for MONGO and anyone else: using the fringe guideline, is Jim Inhofe a fringe source on climate change, and is Wolin a fringe source on political science? Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not mainstream discourse that the U.S. political landscape is in anyway similar to Nazi Germany 1933-1945....anyone that postulates that sort of claim is simply nuts.--MONGO 10:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A nice straw man, but it's not what Wolin wrote. Here's what he actually wrote:   As for observing the historical working relationship between the US and Nazi Germany, well, that's part of the historical record.  You would have to be nuts to deny there wasn't a cultural exchange of ideas that influenced their culture and ours in more ways than one.  Nazi eugenics?  Straight outta' the US.  Computerized concentration camps?  Thanks, IBM.  It's quite possible that inverted totalitarianism is a homegrown idea that the Nazis themselves inverted. Viriditas (talk)and atomization as an end state rather than atomization followed by hyper-politicization as was done in Germany during the rise of Nazism. 10:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MONGO is correct - you seem to be of the opinion that the US has a great deal in common with the Nazis and their ideology - and while I would not use his term to describe you, his opinion decidedly is on the order of ''"that theory is WP:FRINGE".  Collect (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you seem simply unable to see beyond your own preconceptions of what he is saying to understand what is actually being said. There are, arguably, analogues to Nazism and other forms of totalitarianism that can be seen in the US, not similarities there is a difference between the two terms. There seems nothing can be presented that you will accept, the bar keeps moving and as we are not discussing a particular case for inclusion here there is no way to resolve such intransigence.
 * I have no idea how 's little screed about university professors has any bearing on the discussion. It sounds to me like the same thinking as people who say the IPCC is wrong because it was 'colder' where they live. The absolute most you all have proven is that II is a minor theory (actually it is more of a thesis than a theory from what I have read). The concept that Sheldon Wolin is himself a FRINGE is simply laughable. Once a discussion reaches the point of "Yes, Yes, Yes"..."No, No, No" it has neared and likely passed the point of usefulness. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC) PS - I just noticed the new header. Very poorly framed question. Wolin is not claiming that the US is totalitarian, he is claiming that there are analogous/inverted processes going on that weaken our democracy. He is also saying that totalitarian effects can be caused by processes other than the 'usual' centralization of government power. For instance quiescence and atomization as an end state for national politics rather than atomization followed by hyper-politicization as was done in Germany during the rise of Nazism. Jbh (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What Wolin says "The old systems of governance—electoral politics, an independent judiciary, a free press and the Constitution—appear to be venerated. But, similar to what happened during the late Roman Empire, all the institutions that make democracy possible have been hollowed out and rendered impotent and ineffectual. ... The endless election cycles, he said, are an example of politics without politics, driven not by substantive issues but manufactured political personalities and opinion polls. There is no national institution in the United States “that can be described as democratic,” he [Wolin] said."   "'Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate customs, mores, political values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy,” Wolin said. “That is where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. It wants a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. The [capitalist’s] notion of an economy, while broadly based in the sense of a relatively free entrance and property that is relatively widely dispersed, is as elitist as any aristocratic system.”""Resistance, Wolin and Saul agreed, will begin locally, with communities organizing to form autonomous groups that practice direct democracy outside the formal power structures, including the two main political parties. These groups will have to address issues such as food security, education, local governance, economic cooperation and consumption. And they will have to sever themselves, as much as possible, from the corporate economy.(Hedges)" :"I asked them if a professional revolutionary class, revolutionists dedicated solely to overthrowing the corporate state, was a prerequisite. Would we have to model any credible opposition after Vladimir Lenin’s disciplined and rigidly controlled Bolsheviks or Machiavelli’s republican conspirators? Wolin and Saul, while deeply critical of Lenin’s ideology of state capitalism and state terror, agreed that creating a class devoted full time to radical change was essential to fomenting change. There must be people, they said, willing to dedicate their lives to confronting the corporate state outside traditional institutions and parties. Revolt, for a few, must become a vocation. The alliance between mass movements and a professional revolutionary class, they said, offers the best chance for an overthrow of corporate power. "
 * In short - they all assert that the US needs an actual revolutionary overthrow of our meaningless democratic institutions which they find of no use any more. WP:FRINGE. Collect (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In short - nice straw man. No point in engaging on this. Jbh (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it you find the actual cite and quotes to be meaningless -- that they can not really be serious about supporting the overthrow of our meaningless vestigial democracy?  If so - why did they say those precise things? Collect (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) This whole debate is crazy town. It's pretty unsettling that such active/prolific editors are this determined to label something "fringe" based on their own personal (mis)understanding (or disagreement with) the point being made, instead of actually looking at how Wolin has been treated and responded to by reliable sources & scholars. Not a single piece of evidence of Wolin's fringe-ness has been presented here, and the argument seems to be something along the lines of "well, I find his argument ridiculous, therefore it must be fringe." I'm sorry Collect, Arthur, and others, but you guys as individuals are not the ultimate arbiters of what is or isn't FRINGE, and the way that other academics, reputable journals, and other RS have responded to Wolin makes it crystal clear that he is in no way, shape, or form FRINGE. You can turn a blind eye to that fact all you want, but the actual evidence speaks for itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In short - deride the other editors here who have now read hundreds of pages on the topic - including seeking out the opinions of the scholars in the field, and use "proof by assertion" that our assiduous research is faulty, while not providing actual concrete evidence of your proof by assertion?  Sorry -- something in there is a tad fallacious.   MONGO is a quite literate and prolific content creator (over 60K edits).  Arthur Rubin is acquainted a teeny bit with academic rigour (and 100K edits).   I am the dwarf of the group with a couple good articles, a few created articles, only about 40K edits on enWiki, and over three decades online during which I have read well over 500 million words (conservative estimate as I was under contract to a major ISP) and responsible for vetting well over 100,000 images and other files.   I suggest that 1500 edits is not exactly comparable to any of the three of us.  Aeons ago, in fact, I read well over 4,000 pages of texts and sources on "War, Revolution and Totalitarianism."  It is not a blank area for me <g>.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With all that research under your belt I assume you can restate Wolin's thesis in 250 words or less. Please do so. This would facilitate the identification of any misunderstanding or mis-communication on either side of this debate. A similar short statement refuting his thesis would also be useful. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What a totally worthless and inane addition to any discussion.   And it is not I' refuting his position - it is multiple scholarly sources including the clear V-A source you yourself asserted means something it quite clearly does not mean.  Unfortunately, when people quote stuff without any apparent comprehension but simply claim it asserts what it clearly does not assert, I fear I might be under the wrongful apprehension that the person knows how to Google-search but not to read carefully, paying precise attention to vocabulary and syntax.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where I derided anyone - my point was that all of you seem to under the impression that your personal assessment of Wolin is all that's required to rule him out as FRINGE, which is obviously not the case. How many pages you've read/created, how many edits you've made, or how "literate" you are is irrelevant here - and you should know better than to try to pull some concept of "wiki seniority:" anyone can edit wikipedia, and no one editor's opinion is more valid than another's. What really matters is whether or not you can show using reliable sources that the scholar we're talking about (Wolin) is outside the mainstream. AS WP:FRINGE clearly states, "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view" - and we've linked you multiple book reviews from scholarly sources which do not reject Wolin as Fringe, multiple academics who cite and use his ideas in their work. Unless you can produce an even larger, even more extensive body of literature which rejects Wolin and labels him a crackpot, then there's nothing much else to debate here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you feel calling a discussion "crazy town" is how you normally conduct yourself on Wikipedia. I suggest that it is, in fact, derisory.  You proceed with "active/prolific editors are this determined to label something "fringe" based on their own personal (mis)understanding (or disagreement with) the point being made" when it is abundantly clear that we cite specific scholarly sources, and make no personal POV comments thereon, other than to point out that Wolin does not have "mainstream acceptance" for this particular new theory.
 * Indeed, I have shown specific misuse and misconstruction of some of the sources alleged to be supportive of Wolin, and cited direct quotes from Wolin and from others who do agree with him which, to most folks on Wikipedia, appear to be either partisan rants, or worse yet, calls for violent revolution to destroy our vestigial bits of democracy. And again -- the very mixed reviews do not show "widespread support" - in fact they show widespread doubt about this new "theory".
 * Now as far as seniority is concerned - yes you might indeed be learned scholars in the field, or you might be skilled Google-counters. I do not care which, in fact, as Wikipedia is, indeed, able to be edited by folks who have had a single course on a topic.  That does not mean, however, that when they miscite scholarly journals as supporting a theory, when anyone can read them and find they do not do any such thing, that editors are obliged to give equal credence to such editors.     The short list of reviews shows not a single one adopting the theory, in fact.  That you view this as widespread scholarly acceptance is an interesting result of "anyone can edit."
 * With regard to totalitarianism, I do not give credence, alas, to anyone who quotes without understanding exactly what they are quoting.  Neither Arthur nor MONGO fall into such a class. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Crazy Town, I thought I was clear that I was applying that to this debate in general rather than to any individual editor(s) - rest assured, I wasn't trying to call you or anyone else crazy, I just think the debate we're having here is absurd. And sorry, but I don't see that you've cited "specific scholarly sources" that demonstrate Wolin's fringe-ness, or shown "specific misuse and misconstruction" of the sources we've all cited anywhere on this page. Please, show me exactly where I've "miscited" something, where exactly your "specific scholarly sources" that demonstrate Wolin is Fringe are. Because I'm not seeing where either of those things happened. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the same tactic the 9/11 truthers employ, demand cited rebuttals to fringe views...the truthers then claim victory because it cannot be referenced....but that's because the fringe view is so fringe mainstream sources do not bother to address it. The fact that no one has bothered to address it proves it is fringe. It's not supported in mainstream sources either. The article Inverted totalitarianism should probably go to Afd.--MONGO 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. But truthers don't have their books published by Princeton, or get their books reviewed in major academic journals. Or have numerous academics cite their work. Wolin has done all of those things - none of which is consistent with being "so fringe mainstream sources do not bother to address it." Fyddlestix (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Sokal Hoax.   which even hit Springer for quite a few hoax articles. Do reputable publishers get hoaxed? Yep.  Do they publish theories which do not get widely accepted? Even more often. Collect (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, there's no hoax here and there's nothing "fringe" about Wolin. As I said before, you're misusing the term to silence criticism and dissent. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand why other editors have referred to this thread as "crazy town". Collect has added leading questions to these threads, questions that misstate what Wolin and others have actually said. For example, Collect changed this thread title to say "Is the US a totalitarian society using Wolin's theory of "inverted totalitarianism"? Or is that theory WP:FRINGE?" This is very strange, since Wolin himself wrote:

"Without claiming that the American political system is a 'totalitarian regime,' I employ totalitarianism as an extreme ideal-type in order to identify certain tendencies towards totalizing power--which I group under the notion of 'inverted totalitarianism'--that have culminated in a new but still tentative regime, Superpower...I am not claiming that Superpower has been fully realized in the emergence of an unabashed American empire, any more than Nazi Germany was a perfectly realized totalitarianism. In both cases, the terms 'totalitarianism' and 'Superpower' refer to aspirations that negate the ideals of the regimes which they supersede--the Weimer parliamentary system in Germany and the American liberal democracy...I have coined the phrase 'inverted totalitarianism' in order to underscore the peculiar combination of two contrasting, but not necessarily opposing, tendencies."

So, it appears that for every claim made about Wolin by editors in this "crazy town" thread, we find the exact opposite claims made by Wolin himself. Funny, that. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)