User talk:Atty Frederick Wagner

Welcome!
Hello, Atty Frederick Wagner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 331dot (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any particular reason you are identifying yourself as an attorney (atty)? Thanks 331dot (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn the above discussion given your statement on my page. I apologize for the confusion. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Your changes to Eric Voegelin
Frederick

I certainly do not question your expertise or knowledge about Eric Voegelin. My concerns are much more mundane but still important.

By making some of the changes you have made, particularly in the information box near the top of the article, you have created a number of red links i.e. links that do not lead anywhere. This is primarily because you have used your own language (or perhaps that of Eric himself) to describe his qualifications and interests. Also, information boxes are meant to be very brief summaries of a person's skills and attributes and lifetime achievements, not an opportunity to discuss his views or provide personal interpretations of his education or interests.

It was for these reasons that I reverted your changes. Therefore, may I suggest that you review your changes and try and ensure that as many of the changes are linked to relevant Wikipedia articles. Also, re-examine your changes to make sure they do not reflect original research but are based on reliable secondary sources.

I know this must seem like focusing on some rather minor issues – but it is important that Wikipedia is easy for readers to use, both to read the original material and also to refer to other relevant articles.

Thank you--Chewings72 (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You just inserted a long list of non-notables into the influenced box. Doing that is unhelpful and of no benefit to the reader.--Chewings72 (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC): I grant you this list is very long in comparison to any list on Wikipedia that I have seen. There is always a first!  : ) This list was well-considered. I am pretty sure they all have PhD's.  Most of them have written books and all of them have published in learned journals. A number of them are dead, of course, but many of them are not yet of retirement age. We have reasonably contemporary scholarship here and the paradigm of, say, Kant influenced Hegel who influenced Marx is not helpful. Note that forty or so of them are already linked to Wiki articles. Most of them are quiet scholars not interested in self-aggrandizement to the point that they would post their own Wiki biography, although it appears to me that plenty of individuals and corporations do just that. These men and women certainly all appear in search engine results, usually tied to their faculty webpage. You might enjoy getting a "feel" for Voegelin scholarship by viewing some of the people at the annual meeting of the Eric Voegelin Society: http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/evs_2009/evs_toronto_2009_intro.html

The intention in making this list is to provide the names of serious Voegelin scholars. If there is any name or several names you question, I can provide information on how they have distinguished themselves in academia. Best wishes, Fritz Wagner.Atty Frederick Wagner (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Chewings72, It is now 1255 PM CDT 17Mar18. It appears to me that you reverted all my changes in the past several days to the status previously existing before I began to make changes. For some reason I did not received notification of your reversion. So I restored to my latest version. But I looked at that very long list of people influenced by Voegelin and decided that I had been too democratic, having included everyone I knew who had a PhD and had published on Voegelin. So I went through the list again and removed some 40 names, all of whom are tenured or tenure-track but are less well known. It would be very hard to remove more names unless one adopts a populist view of cultural importance. I also noted that a considerable number of the names unlinked are actually linked to the Wikipedias of Germany, France, etc. I will consider linking to those Wikipedias unless some provincial rule would be violated. I would appreciate your thoughts.Atty Frederick Wagner (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanatory comments. Regarding your lists of individuals (now somewhat pruned) who have been influenced by Voegelin, I do believe that there is a need to focus on listing notable individuals who have been materially influenced by ideas and works of Voegelin.  Imagine we were to have a Wikipedia information box on Karl Marx which had a list of everyone who has written on Marx who are "tenured or on tenure-track", to quote you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an opportunity to list many of the members of the Eric Voegelin Society.   Please focus on notable individuals rather than long lists.  Thank you. Chewings72 (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Good Morning! Someone calling himself Natg 19 reverted the page to its  state before I made any changes. I thought this page was YOUR responsibility!  : )

I wanted to tell you that there are no "tenure-track" or self-promoting individuals on the "influenced" list. Twenty-one (at least) of the names listed are dead, most of whom died in the last century, and the fact that someone at Wikipedia hasn't heard of them is not a reflection on the reputations they enjoy. On the "influenced" list, before I changed it, was someone who described himself as being a lawyer and he read and liked Voegelin! Now if Wikipedia adopted a policy of limiting the number of names that may be listed, that would be a different matter. By the way, I noted the page has a "C" rating. Well, I wouldn't have even given it a "C." I was hoping to bring it up to a higher rating. I do appreciate your taking the time to consider this! Best wishes. Fritz Wagner.Atty Frederick Wagner (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have taken down this evening another 53 names from the "influenced" list. I will try to add links for the remaining names. Small beer compared to improving the text. Have a good evening!Atty Frederick Wagner (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)