User talk:DanLanglois

Greetings. I've solicited comments from a select few, about the current analytic/synthetic distinction article, ..

Page Move Discussion
There is a Page move discussion going on for Rajneesh. Would you be interested in participating? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
Talk pages of Wikipedia articles are not forums for you to share your opinions about the subjects of articles. Quoting our policy WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. ... In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Essentially all of your contributions to talk pages over the last six months are in violation of this policy. Please desist from further edits of this form. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could be more specific?

I figured I was being demure, in listing my concerns on talk pages. I hesitate before any sort of adding, reverting, deleting article content, or flagging articles for possible deletion. So, in these cases that you bring up, I was only tiptoeing onto the talk pages. I remain concerned about the issues that I have raised, these are issues of article quality. The point of the talk pages is for the articles to be subjected to greater scrutiny. That's the program, right? Well, what is your opinion of the Willie Soon article, you see my point don't you? I simply cannot imagine that your considered opinion is that I'm wrong to raise the issue. What issue? My comment on my edit was this: '"Fossil fuels interests" is a NPOV problem'. So okay, that's correct. I mean, this not in the 'non-fiction' writing style, is it? I had a couple of issues with that as being 'non-fiction', firstly, this is loosely defined, as it turns out, to be a putative shadowy network of front groups. The Koch Brothers and their allies. I guess one might reply that this is being offered on the authority of the New York Times, but it's still propaganda. Do you even disagree? Self-identified “free market think tanks” are not simply the 'fossil fuel industry'. Secondly, I noted that I can, I think, distinguish between utilities, and the 'fossil fuel industry'. One could simply say 'fossil fuel and utility interests', perhaps. I wonder if eveybody but me is clear on this lack of a distinction between electric utilities and fossil fuels. Look at that article -- I will summarize: corporate interests are pulling all the strings, in one of the stranger conspiracy theories against climate science. I get it. But it's not said in the 'non-fiction' style, you can't refer to a miscellaneous grab-bag of industries plus the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, as being the fossil fuel industry. And I insist that electrical utilities are distinguished from the fossil fuel industry. What we need, here, to settle this, might be a good source, some links. And I could do that. But so could you.

I also note, on your own talk page, that some frustrated remarks appear, such as this:

'i don't intend to have any dispute with you or anybody else, but could you please discuss your edits on the talk pages especially when you remove some sourced content ? This would be, i think, far more constructive than engaging in edit warring and explaining your edits in your edit summaries.'

Perhaps you do not appreciate this usage of talk pages that you are criticizing me for, but on the other hand, I'm not sure there is a better way. I do see your reply to that, also: 'absolutely nothing I have done would have prevented you from beginning a discussion on the talk page if you thought it was important or necessary.'

Well, it doesn't sound like you take yourself to be interested in derailing a thoughtful discussion. But when you attack 'Essentially all' of my contributions to talk pages over the last six months, well, I think that while I am considering what talk pages are for, you owe me something more specific as an example.

What is your advice, about the Willie Soon article, for starters? That's my most recent contribution, which I suppose to be representative of 'essentially all' my posts of the last six months. If you are being jocular, insulting me like this, then the vagueness of it is I suppose appropriate. Otherwise, I need you to be more specific. I don't, by the way, have a rule against you insulting me. My problem with this scornful abuse is not that it is scornful abuse. Actually, I am willing to stretch my imagination, and suppose that are not trying to make me feel low. My point is not simply that you are treating me in a horrible manner. My contributions mean less than nothing to you, fine, then say so. I don't mind. I wonder, if you intend to come off this way, but also, I can stretch my imagination, as far as supposing that you are busy, and it's not all about showing the opposite of respect, per se. Even if it is, feel free to come to my talk page and be an officious one-eyed council clerk, I will be happy to picture you as an incredibly brainy person. Let us suppose, that you have true authority. Indeed, if you value your time like I do, then maybe you deserve some gratitude. I mean, I know that work is work. My own posts, were work. But we love work, and we love Wikipedia. And I am studying my contributions in the light of your feedback, I see that they are wordy. I want them to be as good as possible. Yet even this here post is wordy.. I'll consider this carefully, thanks. But the issue about Willie Soon and so forth remains. Thus, I have my own quote to offer from our policy WP:NOTFORUM: Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.

Thus, as I figure it, on Wikipedia, talk pages serve a variety of functions. One of the main purposes is for Wikipedia editors to discuss how the article should be written, and what material should be included or not. I have noticed, also, that talk page discussions can follow any number of structures and are not as formal as, like, where people "vote" with terms like "keep," "delete". I figure that content discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. And beyond that, it's not just that I see that my own content has made use of policies, guidelines, logic. It's that also, I think you might be willing to keep in mind that content can often be improved. All you're giving me here, is "I do not think this belongs". I'll suggest in response, then, that the only comment less helpful than personal opinion is a simple vote. It is impossible to please everyone. And if it's relevant, then of course we can I hope agree that no content on Wikipedia is censored. Right?

In particular, I relate this to the policy that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. And also, the policy that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Note WP:FRINGE. The concern that I have been articulating, has been about writers and editors of Wikipedia articles writing about controversial ideas in a neutral manner. I am not precisely satisfied, perhaps, merely with what satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Maybe I ought to be satisfied with that, maybe you are satisfied with that. At least, then, we have clarified what your disagreement with me is. I think in terms of an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Thus, quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source isn't necessarily enough for me, unless the sourced contribution does, indeed, simply aid in the verifiable and neutral presentation of the subject. So as a matter of emphasis, at least, I'm not sure we agree, here. I mean, I have a graduate degree in a scientific subject, my best might not be good enough, I suppose, but you are curt with me as if I'm running around adding quotes from The Bigfoot Field Researchers Association or something. I am not trying to violate Wikipedia policies, I think in terms of how particularly harsh criticism should be attributed, for example. This is policy. I didn't make this policy. Do you agree?

Thus, even if I think that some Willie Soon research is a little driblet of childish ignorance and a mark of mankind's infancy, that doesn't mean I can quote the New York Times to that effect. Do I misunderstand Wikipedia policy? I am not trying to change Wikipedia policy, here, I'm trying to emphasize it. If simple facts are stated simply as facts, that's fine with me. I don't want them recast as opinions. But let's ensure that a reader is not spoonfed opinions as facts and vice versa. Don't we agree that this is important? Look, I'm willing to let you take care of it, what makes this my job? It didn't get done. --DanLanglois (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi DanLanglois,
 * Your response here is roughly 1500 words long, which is an awful lot to read, let alone respond to. So I will restrict myself to answering the question in the first line.  Yes, I can be more specific.  Here are some specifics:
 * Your recent edit to Talk:Willie Soon begins with a long series of personal musings about the meaning of the phrase "the fossil fuel industry", before wandering off onto subjects even less closely related to the article. These musings, attached to the end of a 3 year old discussion, bear no relationship to any any potential or proposed edits to the article.  They could not conceivably lead to any improvement in the article.
 * Your recent edits to Talk:Scientific consensus consist of a long series of personal musings about the meaning of the phrase "scientific consensus". These musings do not contain any references to relevant sources, no proposals for changing the text, and nothing that could substantively be of use to anyone trying to improve the article.
 * Your recent edits to Talk:Ben Shapiro include 2500 words of text. I am certainly not going to read them, and I expect that no one else ever will, either. Glancing over them very briefly, I see little indication that they relate to Shapiro or his article at all.
 * Your recent edits to Talk:Emma Jung consist of a series of rhetorical questions addressed to no one, as well as your personal opinions about a variety of things. There is no suggestion for improving the article, and no possibility the comments will be useful to anyone who does want to improve the article.  (Tangentially, the sentence that you quote initially has a footnote at the end of it, with a cited source; if you want to know more about the topic, you should consult that source.)
 * Your recent edits to Talk:Elia Kazan amount to a long conversation with yourself. It includes no suggested references, no concrete ideas about improving the article, and nothing that could possibly be helpful to someone who did want to improve the article.
 * And so on. I refer you back to the same quote from our policy WP:NOTFORUM:

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. ... In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article.
 * Please desist from further edits that violate this policy. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't wind up feeling the need post your wiki policy quote to me for a third time. I can save you the trouble -- our policy WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge. ... In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article.

I appreciate this quote, as I have mentioned. Indeed, in response, I provided some more wiki policy quotes of my own, and I'm thinking that's how I'll reply again. So okay, wikipedia is 'supposed to compile human knowledge'. And I note as well, that the wiki policy is that 'Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it'. You are impatient with what I contributed to the Elia Kazan talk page, though, I imagine that you are just as sure as I am, that something in the article is *not* true. If only because the article baldly contradicts itself. I pointed this out on the talk page, so okay, you're telling me that this is in violation of wiki policy for me to be pointing this out? But putting stuff in the article that isn't true, is fine, apparently. I wonder if you care to insist that this is the way to interpret wiki policy. Hey, maybe you'd like to insist, in which case I'm willing to let you interpret the policy for me. I am saddened that apparently it does not interpret itself, but I don't think we have to debate how to interpret it, because I'm not that invested in improving wikipedia articles. I admit that not all the points that I've made are such "Low-hanging fruit", as is this quick fix to be made to the Elia Kazan article, but what I cannot accept, is the notion that Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy. Wikipedia values accuracy. That is a quote from Wiki policy too. Now there is actually a tougher question here, which could be relevant -- the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth. The *absolute minimum* standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability. I raise this issue above, though, that I take it that merely meeting the absolute minimum standard for inclusion is not sufficient. Unfortunately, truth is not always something as clear and unquestionable as we may desire. But it's not like I'm coming around to Wikipedia to post my essay on 'Which is the best political system?' or such. There are facts, opinions, facts about opinions, and opinions about opinions. But here is something from WP:TRUTH: there are half-truths, lack of context, words with double or unclear meanings, logical fallacies, cherry-picked pieces of information to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion, inadvertent reuse of someone else's lies, and even misunderstandings. A statement may fail to adequately convey the state of affairs regarding some topic, without that statement being an actual lie.

I find this relevant, although perhaps, too, some questions remain -- I can appreciate that reliable sources are not infallible. But also, I notice how most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts. I'm quoting wiki policy when I say that 'In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant.' And, that 'Reliable sources may express speculation, or a source for a significant view may include in it views that are not significant.' And again, this is policy: 'Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth'. While I'm at it, I want to emphasize that I understand the point that there is no use in me or anybody posting something for which no reliable, published sources exist. I am willing to consider what best practice is, here, if you don't think I've done enough to help. I appreciate that the only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Indeed, one of my issues has been the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles. I'm all for limiting this, per wiki policy.

And okay, as to your specific points, I am tempted to respond to each of them, but I'll work backwards and just deal with the one I've already mentioned: your criticism of my 'Elia Kazan' contribution, that it amounts to 'a long conversation with yourself. It includes no suggested references, no concrete ideas about improving the article, and nothing that could possibly be helpful to someone who did want to improve the article.' Well, I had for example criticized this statement from the article: 'His testimony helped end the careers of former acting colleagues Morris Carnovsky and Art Smith, along with ending the work of playwright Clifford Odets.' The thing about this, is that none of it is true. But I didn't simply say 'none of it is true', I said that 'Actually, prior to Kazan's final testimony in April 1952, they agreed to name each other. Odets thereby avoided blacklisting. And so no, his career didn't end, that's silly.' Also, I quoted wiki that: 'Odets's productivity markedly improved after his 1952 testimony: he had written nothing for the screen in the six years prior to 1952, but in the decade after 1952, over 20 of his scripts reached either the large or small screen.' I also mentioned that 'the blacklist did not exist on Broadway, and Carnovsky acted in many Broadway productions throughout the 1950s and into the '60s. As to his screen career, in 1950, Carnovsky was hailed before HUAC, where he refused to "name names." So, sure, his screen career abruptly ended. And this was during the 1950s. And it was when he was blacklisted. But I do not insist on somehow blaming Elia Kazan for these events, which anyways, had already happened by the time Kazan testified. And not to quibble, but Carnovsky also later made two more motion pictures, A View from the Bridge (1962) and The Gambler (1974). It's not a case of 'end the careers'.' Furthermore, I mentioned that 'What about Art Smith. Smith's career took a severe downturn, sure, but did Elia Kazan even name Art Smith? No..' And here again, I did actually cross-reference wiki for this: 'and note that elsewhere in this same article is given the correct list of names named by Kazan: 'Kazan initially refused to provide names, but eventually named eight former Group Theatre members who he said had been Communists: Clifford Odets, J. Edward Bromberg, Lewis Leverett, Morris Carnovsky, Phoebe Brand, Tony Kraber, Ted Wellman, and Paula Miller, who later married Lee Strasberg.'

I'll sum up, I criticized this statement from the Elia Kazan article: 'His testimony helped end the careers of former acting colleagues Morris Carnovsky and Art Smith, along with ending the work of playwright Clifford Odets.' And my point is, that none of this is true. So okay, I put that issue on the talk page. As to suggestions, well, one could simply, therefore, delete that sentence, and the article would be better. I won't offer to do that, under the circumstances, but if you do it then I'll be happy to reply to another of your queries.

DanLanglois (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the only part of your comment that I care about: "As to suggestions, well, one could simply, therefore, delete that sentence, and the article would be better." This sentence consists of a constructive comment that could be related to improving the article.  ("Could be", because I have no opinion at all about whether you are correct that it would improve the article.)  Nothing else you wrote (here, or in any of the other edits I mentioned) has that property.  In the future, you should focus on making statements of that kind (constructive suggestions for improvements to articles) instead of long personal essays.  That is what WP:NOTFORUM says, and all I am asking you to do is to adhere to that policy.  --JBL (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Here you are telling me what is the case in 'Nothing else that you wrote (here, or in any of the other edits I mentioned'. Well, to my eyes this is a sweeping general remark, which resembles in this respect, your original remark about 'Essentially all of your contributions to talk pages over the last six months'. I asked you for specifics, and I do, by the way, commend you for providing something along those lines. I mean, I do like specifics, really, and I dislike sweeping general remarks that simplify and mislead. But, among the specifics that you provided, you mentioned that you didn't even read my Ben Shapiro contribution, though you skimmed it, I guess, pointing out that 'I am certainly not going to read them, and I expect that no one else ever will, either. Glancing over them very briefly, I see little indication that they relate to Shapiro or his article at all.' Well, then I won't tarry to repeat them, but I figure the ball is in your court, when it comes to stipulating the point I made about the Elia Kazan article, and fixing it. As I offered before,  I won't offer to do that, under the circumstances, but if you do it then I'll be happy to reply to another of your queries. DanLanglois (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not a sweeping generalization, it is a straightforward analysis of your contributions. The principle here is extremely simple: Wikipedia is not a place to post personal essays and reflections, and article talk pages are for discussion directly related to improving articles.  Going forward, please take care to follow this simple principle.  Thank you.  --JBL (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course it is a sweeping generalization. Indeed, I don't think you mean to deny that, so much as to deny the point that it is also a hasty generalization — essentially making a rushed conclusion. And of course, it is that too, and I am flabbergasted that you persist in telling me about what I wrote, when I wrote it, and you admit to not even having read it. DanLanglois (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)