User talk:JeffSharlet

Mr. Sharlet, thank you for participating on the talk page of The Family (Christian political organization). I understand that there is a problematic and troublesome editor participating on that page, but I was forced to remove one of your comments responding to that editor. We have a policy here that prohibits the use of legal threats or anything that could be interpreted as a legal threat. If you find another editor's comments legally problematic, you can contact me or another administrator to look into the matter, or if you find this unsatisfactory, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly at info-en-q@wikimedia.org. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't let this discourage you from participating in the discussion (I've found your responses invaluable); but for our own protection we have to keep a very hardnosed attitude here towards anything that looks like a legal threat. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I second what Orangemike said. We hope you continue to participate. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. You can just stop responding to him at this point, I believe. Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome, Jeff Sharlet!

Now, I don't know for sure that you are the Jeff Sharlet who wrote the book, The Family: Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. (Unfortunately, that is something difficult to prove given the anonymous nature of Wikipedia.)

Nevertheless, I have started reading the book. Also, I have checked references in The Family (Christian political organization) to make sure that when they reference a specific page in the book, the page supports what the reference says.

Anyways, I believe you are an expert on The Family and lots of matters attached to that. You might find the Wikipedia essay, Wikipedia:Expert editors, to be helpful. It shows some of the tensions that exist between the experts (people who know what they are talking about because they have done the research) and the regular editors (people who might not have access to the offline sources).

As for me, I am not an expert, so I cannot grasp the challenges you might face when dealing with Wikipedia editors. (To get a sense of my biases, see the section, User:Kevinkor2)

Again, welcome!

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have some consternation over the apparently neutral, thoughtful and welcoming nature of the comments on your discussion page, in contrast to the inexplicable complete lack of a NPOV on the Wikipedia entry for the Fellowship, I share your consternation. Apparently Wikipedians are happy to talk about the way Wikipedia is supposed to work and reflect a NPOV, and then take wholly insufficient action when it all goes awry. I am a former editor of the page on the Fellowship. I am on strike. I am not going to waste my time on a futile exercise. Just like your book, my comments and factual additions have been and will continue to be written out of Wikipedia history as long as the present state of affairs continues. I hope you write an article to cast some sunlight on this sad situation in which Wikipedia has allowed itself to be hijacked. Only then can there be some hope to restore balance to this and other entries which are political in nature. Please see my responses to your comments on the Fellowship discussion page under the silly subheading "Are you sure this group exists". Likesausages (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the Fellowship article; your research gives you an invaluable ability to edit the piece. PRRfan (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Express Your Views on Mention of Membership in the Family on WIkipedia
It would be beneficial if you chimed in asap at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_4, which discusses the possible deletion of the valid (IMO) category Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. Zerschmettert die Schändliche (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning you at noticeboard
See Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for more info. -- Jayron  32  05:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns listing from 2011
Item; This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2011) This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources. (September 2011) ... as a pair this is some ridiculous, no? This page needs citations, but has too many primary references... 91.72.205.194 (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)