User talk:C.J. Griffin/Archive 2

Linking private prisons in GEO Group Stadium
I wanted to let you know that I have started a discussion on the talk page for linking private prisons on the talk page for GEO Group Stadium. I will be leaving a similar note on Niteshift36's talk page. – Runfellow (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Mao's wiki page
Hi, I am a college student writing a research paper on China's takeover of Tibet, so I came to Mao's page for some information but I don't see anything about Tibet on his page. I looked through the history of his page and noticed that you are one of the top contributors of his page. Why do you think that no one has written or mentioned anything about Tibet? Would you consider adding something about Tibet on his page? I know that there are people who reject Tibet as its own country but don't you think there should be at least something about Tibet? Thank you for your time.--Madeintibet59 (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious discuss
That seems an interesting way to question a claim in the text, it is unlikely that the cribb article itself is a dubious source it is more likely a conlcusion that has been prapphrased from the article, perhaps you might consider taking it to the talk page yourself rather than leaving a tag like that? (Indonesian Killings has been a contested article over some considerable time due to the POV regarding US involvement, which also ignores the UK involvement etc etc)  I am not sure whether you have ever had a practical or productive response to leaving tags like that in articles? It seems that any idea of NPOV gets very easily lost for articles like that one. sats 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I am somewhat cynical when I see articles littered with such tags, and your change is appreciated.. at least that is an interpretation of what he might have said, as I havent read the book for over 15 years I honestly cannot remember whether that is a reasonable call as to his argument at that time, the subsequent rash of books emanating from career seeking academics in the us about what the us did or didnt do from yet another cache of records/etc has more or less eclipsed the ground breaking work that Cribb did on the subject - I thing it would be more intellectually honest to identify the significant separation of time and the restrictions of access to the range of documents and sources avilable to cribb at the time he was writing and the subsequent more recent us industry of proving involvement in places like Indonesia from uncovered sources sats 16:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

United States -> poor, etc
To be perfectly honest, I suspect there may well be evidence that some percentage of US poor (possibly "many") are better off than the poor in other countries. However, that is no justification for quoting a right-wing political activist organization like Heritage about the poor, which is rather like quoting the Nazi party about Jews, or quoting the KKK about African-Americans. And the fact that your opponent in the "edit conflict" keeps referring to "government figures" without ever quoting them or providing links to government web sites clearly suggests that either the figures do not exist or do not substantiate what he claims they substantiate. Which is why I stuck my nose in. Arcanicus (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated and point taken. There might indeed be such evidence, although I suspect that the Heritage Foundation took these "government figures" and put their own spin on them in order to provide justification for further retrenchment of our already weak (by international standards) social safety net. Those articles I linked which were highly critical of The Heritage Foundation's characterization of poverty in the US also suggest this, and it makes sense. I also noticed that my opponent could not provide any other sources on such data, which is quite telling. While I would agree that the poor in the US are much better off than those facing absolute poverty in developing nations, I highly doubt our poor have it better than poor folks in Northern Europe or Canada or perhaps even Australia. From the evidence I've seen, the Nordics have been the most successful at poverty reduction precisely because they do have an elaborate and extensive social safety net. The way we pack our prisons full of poor folks for minor crimes (the "surplus population" that is of no other use to the capitalist establishment) is reprehensible. And even though it is a polemic, Chris Hedges' Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt paints a picture of poverty in America that looks absolutely abysmal. But I digress...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And "on top of everything else" until Jan 1, 2014 the "poor" in the US have no health insurance, except for emergency ER care, which means zero (0) preventative care. And the instant I see anyone claiming that some impoverished group has "video games" and "gold-plated peanut crackers" I want to know where they're getting their information, because the last time I saw a Census form it had about 10 questions and none of them concerned Xbox, "peanut crackers," or any consumer goods whatsoever.  :)  Arcanicus (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit to The Heritage Foundation
Hi C.J. I noticed your edit from a little while ago to The Heritage Foundation article and wanted to mention something about it. First though, I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation so my participation with this article is strictly limited to the talk page. I won't make any changes to what you added, but I wanted to point out a slight inaccuracy that I hope you can correct.

The source you used to support the information you added notes that it was Heritage Action that warned legislators not to vote for the Senate budget compromise, but the edit you made just says "Heritage". Though related, Heritage Action and The Heritage Foundation are not the same organization.

I had left a message about this on the talk page so that the conversation was open to everyone, but there hasn't been a reply there yet. Here is that message. Do you have time to revisit this and let me know what you think about clarifying which organization issued the warning? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see you moved the information about Orrin Hatch's criticism over to the Heritage Action article. Thanks for your quick action! Thurmant (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

DU rounds in the Iraq War
One of the main reasons that I reverted your comment on the Iraq War was about DU rounds causing birth defects is there are other causes both dealing with radiation and non-radiation that could have caused it. Here is a article that takes about how looters were inadvertently exposing people back in 2003.

Articseahorse (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Those articles are a decade old and were actually written before serious fighting in Fallujah even took place. I cited three different sources from the last two years blaming cancer/birth defects in Fallujah on DU and white phosphorus.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Except that it does not take into account of the chemical attacks and how it affected the population.This is from the article.

''When Adham says “forever,” it’s not really an exaggeration. The aftereffects of the attack will last a long time and has already gone through the generations, affecting those who weren’t even born in 1988.

“So far there is no comprehensive study showing a cause-effect relation between the chemical attack and the high number of congenital defects or blood cancer we have been registering among kids here,” said Jihad Hama, a doctor in Halabja’s German Center for the Psychologically and Physically Disabled, which is financed by German aid.  But most of the victims in Halabja are certain that direct exposure of parents to the gas, and then to contaminated soil and water, has caused a high number of miscarriages and children suffering from severe diseases.''

Also the link from democracy now is hardly neutral considering that there are other reports that are more detailed that is presented without a forgone conclusion.

I would strongly suggest using this article to replace the one from Democracy now to help with issues POV pushing.

Articseahorse (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Halabja is not Fallujah. And Democracy Now!, while certainly progressive, is more reliable, in my opinion, than most corporate run media in the US - they receive no corporate funding, no government funding and of course no corporate ads. I see no need to remove it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Read that article by Democracy Now and honestly tell me how their article is not pushing POV. The first sentence states: "U.S. invasion of Iraq has left behind a legacy of cancer and birth defects suspected of being caused by the U.S. military’s extensive use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus." So before the article goes into anything that is remotely seen as object data it is already claiming that the cause was the DU round and the White Phosphorous. Also it goes off topic about the birth defects and cancer to talk about the legality of the war. How does the legality of the war play into the question of does DU round causes birth defects? That is why it is a biased report.


 * MY point is that there are many factors involved to honestly identity one single cause for these birth defects. The report that I posted is as neutral as you can get. I would like you to show this is a biased report.


 * Articseahorse (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "So before the article goes into anything…"
 * Friend, would you not agree that, by this logic, every scientific paper ever published in the standard format is POV: the abstract, which appears at the very beginning, summarises the paper's conclusions before presenting the data they are based on. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that is not how it is done. In the opening you form your hypothesis and test it with experimentation and evidence. It is not forming a conclusion and then only using evidence that agrees with that conclusion and ignoring the rest. As far as research papers, go they do not use conclusion in the opening, but rather what they are trying to test. Here are some examples of DU testing if you want something to reference. So I still stand by my statement that the "Demecory Now" website is playing fast and loose with the facts. Articseahorse (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Economic inequality
Hi, I reverted your recent edit to Economic Inequality because I had already added the Oxfam statistic yesterday (appears earlier in same section). Apologies if I did something wrong, I'm new at this and this is my first revert. Also, is it just me or does that whole section need some cleanup work? Lots of statistics but not sure they are organized very well. GuineaPigC77 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I completely missed it. This is why I shouldn't be contributing at 1:30 in the morning... But shouldn't the 2014 Oxfam report follow the previous one?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha okay good. I'm not sure. I left a message on the talk page but I'm not an expert on this stuff. So I dunno the how it would be best organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuineaPigC77 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin - Don't plan to get involved but I do watch the article Income inequality in the United States. May I suggest, if this is the opinion of Moberg or empirical research, that your edit add an in-line attribution for the viewpoint. As it is now, it either looks like the opinion of Navarro (carry over from the prior sentence) or a clear statement of fact. Morphh  (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Claims on Fast food worker strikes page, criticism section
I respectfully assert that this section is accurate unbiased and necessary and further that the combination of citations justifies the statement made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Only the first citation even mentions the ReasonTV reporter, therefore the other sources, which are all polemical/blog pieces anyway, are improperly cited. Not only that, but these fast food strikes were a global phenomenon, so undue weight is given to this one story about the supposed banning of one reporter during the protests. In addition, there is no mention of BerlinRosen in the primary source cited (ReasonTV), which means that this one sentence in the "criticism" section is WP:synthesis.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a source from a Las Vegas Newspaper, and I assert that this alongside the, "polemics" and Reason TV source combined affirm the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism Allegations
Thank you for the correction. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Don't let yourself be goaded into an edit war
Escalating to dispute resolution or WP:NPOVN might seem less satisfying, but it's better than risking a block or worse. Thank you for your careful eye. EllenCT (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'll keep that in mind.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried to rescue your addition of Wage theft to "See also" in the article on Income inequality in the United States after it was reverted by User:Arthur Rubin. My reversion was itself reverted by User:Capitalismojo, who asked me to move the discussion to Talk:Income inequality in the United States.  There, I initiated an exchange with User:Arthur Rubin under 'delete Wage theft as "Relationship? I see none"'.  I'm planning NOT to spend any more time on this.  If you have time and interest for this, you might read that exchange, comment yourself, and ask the User:Capitalismojo to contribute.
 * Yes, I've been goaded into an edit war. I shall now retire from it, as the benefits are not worth the struggle to me.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it and agree that this is not worth an edit war. I've made my views known on the talk page.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spumuq (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you didn't report 5.55.53.225 for violating the 3RR rule. Just saying...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary, a simple form of paying respect to others
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

Hi, Grognard or not: I have nothing against your edit on the TPP page which I have contributed to too, but an edit summary would facilitate working through my watch list a lot. its a simple form of paying respect to others... and as a Grognard, you should know. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

US political influence
I note that the revised improvement was reverted again. I don't want to edit war, so if you want the improvement to your consensus version which covers all taxes in the article, please put it in. EllenCT (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Income inequality in the United States
C.J., thanks for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work.

Regarding my recent revert of the "contribution" by the IP address *.176.11:  "The history of biology is littered with horrifying examples of the misuse of genetics (and evolutionary theory) to justify power and inequality: evolutionary justifications for slavery and colonialism, scientific explanations for rape and patriarchy, and genetic explanations for the inherent superiority of the ruling elite." -Pankaj Mehta, There's a gene for that (February 2014), Jacobin.

Best Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Thank you for the kind words.


 * Another great find by the way. I've been an avid reader of Jacobin for the last couple of years but missed this article somehow. Thanks.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I highly recommend the following article by Jonathan Latham, a Ph.D. scientist: Political Paralysis and the Genetics Agenda (August 2013), CounterPunch. Regards, -- IjonTichy (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional recommended reading: Eugenics in the United States   and Nazi eugenics. IjonTichy  (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ALEC
Just to be clear about this, I fully support the creation of a subsection about ALEC's anti-union policies. It's just that the way you wrote it was really about Walker and Wisconsin, not about ALEC. The subsection should summarize ALEC's policies and highlight any notable developments. If we mentioned all of the instances when individual states have adopted ALEC model bills then the article would become seriously bloated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I.W.W. book
Sorry about that. I went to the book's description. It said nothing about IWW. I appologize for jumping the gun. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Cites
Hi CJ, thanks for your additions to Bernie Sanders. Could you please use cite web when adding references? Thanks! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts please
I'd like your thoughts on this:  Do you think we should add a few words? If you do, which part of the article? Or should we just wait for a few days to see what develops? I'm assuming that eventually this will come to be seen as a major issue and we will cover it, but I'm wondering if it is too soon to include something. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we should give it a few days before making any additions. It does seems like this controversy might have legs, however, unlike others which didn't even last 48 hours (i.e., his 1972 essay).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Malala
Please discuss your recent revert of my changes at the TP of the article as per BRD. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders
I am confused why did you say that you agreed with another user on the SNL skit being deleted when I was the one who deleted it? Darkninja505 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was referring to this revision. At first glance it looked to me like The Four Deuces removed the material. Looking over the revision history I now see where you made the change. My apologies.C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanders
Hello C.J.

My name is Brad and I'm a writer. I'm currently researching the changes that have been made to Bernie Sanders' Wikipedia entry since the start of his campaign — would you have time to send a few emails back and forth regarding your work on the entry?

Cheers, Brad
 * I don't give out my e-mail address over Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. Lets keep it to the talk page if you don't mind. Thanks.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you be at the S.D. Wikipedia convention next month? Activist (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, too busy IRL. :( --C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Economic inequality
Hello CJ, I see you undid some edits on the above page please see my explanations on the talk page and comment. I could not see any comments or reasons for your undo's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economic_inequality#Recent_edits Thank you.People1750 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated in the comments section that I reverted WP:OR.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes i saw that. Still the issue still remains of inappropriate wording. Please respond on the talk page. Thank you.People1750 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Indonesian Killings
Hey CJ, You made a compelling point before when I used some CIA sources for the article at Indonesian killings of 1965–66. Now I'm wondering if and how we could use the following two sources for anything there. They contain a lot of information that appears to shed new light on foreign understanding at the time. I'm not sure if they would be considered primary though, since they seem to have both been written much later and in reference to earlier documents. See for yourself: Thanks, Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Vol. 60, No. 1 (Unclassified articles from March 2016), Studies in Intelligence
 * The Lessons of the September 30 Affair, CIA Historical Review Program
 * This sources appear to be secondary. That being said, I don't see much value in them as WP:RS (especially the first source). But if you see something that is worth mentioning we can certainly discuss it or you can of course add it to the article via WP:BRD.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

User Rjansen
I noticed the dispute you were having with User:Rjensen regarding the Neoliberalism page. I am having a similar dispute with him regarding the Neoconservatism page; he keeps reversing my addition of Hillary Clinton to the page, misrepresenting why in the edit description, claims my sources aren't RS when I believe they are...I could go on. There is some discussion on the Talk:Neoconservatism page but his responses seem to just be attempts to confuse the issue. He also keeps trying to claim BLP protections, my sources are simply "attacks" on Hillary Clinton. I really don't even know how to begin dealing with an editor like this, and was hoping you might be able to assist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.173.99 (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He's persistent, that's for sure. You'll need to find a better source than Salon given that there is no attribution, and the list you added her to is essentially in Wikipedia's voice. I'd look for some academic sources that describe her worldview and policies as neoconservative. Definitely drop the Global Research citation. It is considered a non-RS and a conspiracy website by many Wikipedians. The list appears to be alphabetized as well, so I'd move her name up if you find the proper sources and consensus among the other editors on that page. C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (No suspicion of anything on you - I just mentioned you so I need to alert you here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Edit warring at Neoliberalism
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

TPP bad sources
You removed my edit of TPP without commenting on the talk page. Please explain on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Bad_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.209.246 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)