User talk:Mystichumwipe/Archive 2

More fun on Conspiracy theory talk
You put in your comment just before I put in the smoking gun regarding the use of the phase "Conspiracy theory"--two 19th century University Press books that used the phase one of which was published by a branch of Oxford University itself and and even older one from Princeton University! The conspiracy theory article is really starting to remind me of the Jesus myth theory article--a mess of conflicting sources and experts dropping the research ball.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Issues at Conspiracy Theory
I posted this to the article talk page and then thought better of it, as this kind of discussion really isn't appropriate there. In regard to your questions, did you not see my prior statement "So it seem to me we have two choices, either to remove that particular bit or to see if we can work in the material without violating OR"? To which Bruce Grubb responded with drama such as "Or are you saying the US SENATE is not reliable (as a source)?!?" and "You are contesting a history professor of freaking Harvard University?!?", drama which has continued ever since, to the point where he has suggested that some editors may be guilty of libel (which is perilously close to making a legal threat). You suggested that we might be "arguing against a strawman of [our] own misunderstanding", which is fine, but can you not see that whatever that particular misunderstanding was, the argument should have died back once the "offending" material was removed? Even a heated discussion here is hardly a "disaster" or a "long battle", especially when a short term resolution is reached so quickly despite a misunderstanding. You listed events 1 and 2, but remember, event 3 was that we agreed that Knight was wrong, and that the statement should be rephrased or removed, and it was.

And I understood what he meant, but still think that many of his suggested phrasings are classic SYNTH, which opens with ''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources'', followed by an example that is exactly parallel, to my way of thinking, to the proposal made by Bruce Grubb: "Peter David states "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates from 1909" (ref); however, the phrase "conspiracy theory" also appears in Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart LLD Professor in history in Harvard University pg 31(ref) and The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67(ref)." Such linkage implies, intentionally or otherwise, conclusions beyond the simple fact that Knight's assertion is incorrect which I strongly believe we should not make. For example, Knight's article appears to be about the pejorative uses of the term, and the earlier uses found by Bruce Grubb appear to me to use it in a neutral sense, and the close juxtaposition could be said to imply that the usages are equivalent. But neither I nor anyone else here is in a position to judge whether or not the usages are equivalent, esp. given that the counter sources are primary. Bruce Grubb pointed to NOTOR, saying that "Pointing out that Knight's claim is wrong is NOT OR by WP:NOTOR DEAL WITH IT". Again, shouting, unnecessary drama, and to boot NOTOR is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. John Shandy's subsequent analysis is, I think, spot on. Other editors, such as Jayjg, concurred (and I can tell you that more often that not Jayjg and I disagree, although I readily acknowledge Jayjg is a fine and able editor). So we have a circumstance where there is legitimate disagreement about how we can use primary source material without violation of OR. No disaster, no long battle, no really significant conflict at all, just normal daily business here at WP.

Finally, I came to the article because Jayjg pointed out that Loremaster was giving up on the article because of the contentiousness there. I've worked with Loremaster on other articles, and Loremaster is a fine editor. Now it appears that John Shandy is giving up here as well. At the point that good editors become disgusted with the inability to move forward in a productive manner on any article, one has to ask oneself, what are the sources of the problem? I think I know some of them are, and if things continue like this, I am perfectly willing to follow procedures in appropriate order over a long period of time in the attempt to resolve them. This is not meant as a threat, but rather a clarification that I'm here for the long haul, and don't give a rat's ass about this topic one way or another. But we should all, everyone one of us, ask ourselves how we can be more effective in working together to achieve consensus, every day we edit.

I'm sorry to have gone on so long, but I hope the above is clear--as I said, I think continuing in this vein is useless, so I'll shut up now. If we have issues with questions of whether or not an assertion is OR, we can take it to the appropriate notice board. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Nuujinn. I just saw this AFTER i posted at the talk page. Thanks first of all for taking the time to explain your position to me.
 * Regarding Grubbs "classic SYNTH" I still feel you are perhaps wrongly assuming that what he wrote on the talk page were suggestions for the article page. So I still suspect that because of that basic misunderstanding the conversation got bogged down in WP:OR debates and thus went nowhere while producing so much bad feeling. (People did something similar with the presentation of the Barkun correspondence on the talk page)
 * I feel it would be best best to just acknowledge that there was a misunderstanding and then we can move on.
 * Finally, my difficulty with the article (and thus with JohnShandy and Loremaster's position) has always been the article's concentration on the perjorative usage of the 'conspiracy theory' definition without properly acknowledging that there is and has been for many years a more neutral definition and usage ALSO. I do wonder if it just coincidental that this discussion of a reference to a longer history of the neutral usage has now become a source of contention. Could it be that there remains a subconscious desire by some to play that down?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mystichumwipe, I've been acknowledging a misunderstanding all around for a while now. He did not simply just intend use of the sources on the talk page, for example this proposal was for article space: "Peter David states "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates from 1909" (ref); however, the phrase "conspiracy theory" also appears in Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart LLD Professor in history in Harvard University pg 31(ref) and The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67(ref)." That's synth. And he's still shopping his personal vision of what OR and V mean in other venues. That's fine, but I believe his understanding of the intent of the policies is flawed. He has also misrepresented, in my opinion, what I and others have said, and that's not fine. And I was serious when I said I don't give a rat's ass about the topic--from what I've read, the term wasn't jargon until the 1960s, and then it's usage as a pejorative exploded, and now some are trying to rehabilitate the term with little success. If you can find good solid reliable sources, preferably academic, I'll support adding them, it's as simple as that. I'm not questioning your motives and I ask politely that you not question mine. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But I don't see where in the quote you have given BruceGrubb has suggested adding anything to the article page. He appears to me to merely point out that what is on there is incorrect. How does providing quotes on the talk page to demonstrate that become 'synth'? Unless I am missing something you appear to be confirming my assessment of what lies behind this dispute - a misunderstanding of his intent.
 * And... Even if "the term wasn't jargon until the 1960s" do you agree it would not serve the accuracy of the article to ignore that pre-1960 usage. Which IS precisely what the article did BEFORE. I just wonder if that is the possible bedrock of this ongoing dispute.
 * Finally, I'm not questioning your motives. I'm just pointing to possible subliminal reasons why this has become so heated and protracted.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to Bruce Grubb, please reread the talk page. He was arguing that that wording would not violate NOR. He has also been arguing this in WP:V and WP:NOTOR, which is one reason this is still going on. Myself, I think the changes he's proposing in the essay would open the door to much badness in term of OR.
 * In regard to the article, I don't really think when the term was first used is all that interesting, but if we can find sources that treat early usage, count me in. It is not policy, but I generally follow the spirit of WP:N in terms of what to include--if secondary sources discuss something, someone reliable thought it was important, so we can include it. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read all that on the talk page quite thoroughly a few times, and er... there is rather a lot of it now. So I am not keen to read it all again searching for something that I have already looked for and couldn't find ;-) . That is why I asked you to quote where has he ever suggested adding something to the article that you regard as OR? I haven't seen or been able to find that and I've asked before for evidence of that if I've missed it. You wrote: "He was arguing that that wording would not violate NOR". What wording would not, exactly? And if you are referring to what he quoted on the talk page to prove Knight was in error, it is of course not OR. That is the strawman I again suggest you have been attempting to knock down..
 * Plus, I got that you don't think examples of the earlier usage "that interesting". But do you understand why others, for the reasons I have given, might think its quite crucial to a proper understanding and evaluation of the term? Especially in an article that has key editors who previously avoided referring to that and created an article that refers only to the relatively more recent perjorative term as if that is its only meaning and usage?


 * I have just visited BruceGrubb's talk page and seen that my view of your misunderstanding appears to be correct. He has written there:

''I wasn't trying get anything in the article. I merely pointed out the reference was wrong using RS and the other editors jumped on the assumption and OR bandwagon. However the reasoning that was presented by some editors shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what OR even is and a major disconnect between OR and NOTOR and that is the real issue.''

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Having seen BG push this issue now in 5-6 different places leads me to question his motives. His understanding of NOR is, in my opinion, flawed. You might take a look at this. In regard to the first use of the term, the reason I don't think just saying when it was first used is very interesting is because that's all we can say--we cannot take one of the primary sources that use the phrase and derive ourselves what that usage means--determining whether it is used to denote a neutral "theory of a conspiracy" or in the more usual current pejorative sense is not something we can do. As a term, currently "conspiracy theory" has a pejorative meaning, although clearly some wish to rehabilitate the term. What we need to make it interesting is a secondary source that talks about one of those uses in such a way that we can reference that. For example, if we follow Hans Adler's suggestion and look at history of civil war research on theories and find a source that explicitly discusses the phrase as a neutral term, we may be able to use that. What would be more interesting, I expect from what you have said, is a good source that discusses historical usage of the phrase, how the phrase neutrally denoting a theory of conspiracy changed over time to the pejorative term we have now. Such a source should be available. Does that make sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Well why not just stop questioning his motives and instead take what he is writing at face value. Show some 'good faith, and then your argument against your guess of his motives can end. ;-) That is all it has been. Don't you see yet? (And can you not see why someone would get pissed off with that?)
 * 2. Yes, that makes sense. And of course a secondary source would be great. But what to do in the absence of that in the meantime? I suggest adding the primary sources as you suggested. What's wrong with that for now?
 * 3. As a term, currently "conspiracy theory" has a pejorative meaning, sure. But i would argue this has NEVER been about some wishing to rehabilitate the term. That I regard as spin. This has rather been about acknowledging that there exists simultaneously a current neutral usage and meaning that is also much older than the more recent perjorative one. We would be are rewriting history by refusing to acknowledge that or not allowing the neutral usage to have equal status in the article.
 * 4. C'mon bro. What's happenin'? You keep confirming my points, don't you see?
 * 4a.) your'e still arguing against a strawman of BG's point without acknowledging that and
 * 4b.) still insisting there is only a perjorative meaning and usage current today. That is NOT correct and that's why Shandy and Loremaster wanted us to go into the wierd and montyypythonesque world of using 'conspiracy theory' (perjorative) versus 'theory of conspiracy' (neutral). --Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm sorry, but he appears to be forum shopping and displays ownership issues.
 * 2) I think that would be OR. To me, it is very simple--if the date of first usage was really important, there would be more coverage of that issues in secondary sources.
 * 3) I do not wish to imply that you want to rehabilitate the term--I am referring to those within the conspiracy research community. I think you are correct about historical usage, and I'm not sure about there really being a current neutral usage, but our beliefs are not important. What is important is what we can find in reliable sources.
 * 4) What points am I confirming? BG is pushing this same argument and the parallel ones from Jesus Myth Theory and a couple of other articles in a half dozen venues, trying to alter policy in what I regard as a detrimental manner. To the extent I am arguing with his position, I am not doing so here--my goal here is to hash out our differences in what constitutes OR. And I'm not insisting on a particular usage, but rather that we rely on reliable sources. Do you have any to support your desired edits? That's the real question here. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) He appears to be? Hmmm? You appear to me to still be in breach of good faith, mate. You're still arguing against an assumption of his motives despite his clear clarification of them.
 * 2) You have previously claimed it IS possible to add that while avoiding it being OR. Why the change of heart?:
 * 3) You're not being "sure about there really being a current neutral usage" is curious. You don't believe current dictionaries? Plus GB has presented now a great deal of RS for this on the talk page. Check it out.
 * 4) I agree BG has been arguing about the principle of OR. I assume he wants to bring the communities attention to the issue. I.e. The discussion on the talk page morphed. Its really two separate discussions. Good that he took the application and interpretation of OR elsewhere where it is better dealt with. Early usage of CS on the article page is the issue that remains. So I feel no need to "hash out" OR between you and I. We just add the early usage( despite you thinking it is of little interest as you don't believe there is a current neutral usage and presumably find the historical evidence of it of little consequence) or we don't add 'em. That's about it, isn't it :-)? Add 'em or not.
 * Summary: Regarding my own wished for changes, these I have recently made clear now a few times on the talk page. Plus I have already discussed some of that at great length with Loremaster and Shandy. My edits with citations were deleted by your good self, remember. ;-) Now I just attempt to suggest solutions, generate agreement and support those views that I agree with, and perhaps thereby can influence the direction. I am loathe now to make changes myself as everything I have added (without exception) has been deleted by yourself and others despite providing reliable sources. It was even suggested that I alone was edit warring, despite all my attempts at discussion and reaching agreement. So I just pop in now and again to see how its going. Best wishes. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about this but here is another point against the nonsense Nuujinn was spouting: "User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect." ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC) (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/RfC) This is a prime example the 'accuracy be damned; it is verifiable' mindset I was arguing against and so few of the editors really grasped.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:CarinGoering b.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CarinGoering b.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed: Dachau concentration camp
Wikipedia received a complaint about this article, during investigation of which it was discovered that content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/dachauscrapbook/DachauLiberation/GuardTowerB.html, and it seems to have been added in this edit by you.

For one example of verified duplication, you added this to the article:

That external site says:

The only difference here is that you have added the word "Whereas." Other content was also copied or closely paraphrased the source.

Content you added in this edit has been removed from the article. Copied material cannot be put into articles unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text.

If you have pasted content into other articles from other sources, please go back and make sure that it conforms to our copyright policies. A brief overview of these can be found at Copy-paste.

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Content you added to World War I in this edit has had to be removed as well, as I'm afraid that it copied and closely paraphrased from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWudc.htm and http://www.monbiot.com/2008/11/11/lest-we-forget/. For a few examples, the former says:


 * Text you added says:


 * The other source says:


 * You wrote:


 * Given your care in documenting your sources, I do not believe that you intentionally violated any policies, but I'm afraid, as I said above, that this is simply not permitted under our Terms of Use and copyright policies. We have to put all of our information into our own words, except for brief and clearly marked quotations, unless the content is compatibly licensed or public domain. (Most content is not.) Even if it is, we have to acknowledge that we are copying, not just cite our sources, to avoid Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have also removed some of the content you placed in Colin Campbell Mitchell, as it duplicated and closely followed http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19947. Other content seems rewritten enough for us to retain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I've found a different issue. It seems that you copied content from the article Aafia Siddiqui. This is perfectly fine, as our content is compatibly licensed, but to comply with our license you have to note what you are doing in your edit summary. At the time you copy content, that might look like this: I've repaired the issue there by belated noting in article summary what happened and adding the copied to both articles' talk pages.

For more information about copying content from one article to another, please see Copying within Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. As you've already noticed in the Josef Mengele article, he's also copied material from the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust-denying organization. Moreover, I've already had to delete or clean up large amounts of text from that article copied directly from the sources; for example, in this edit he adds the text
 * This is an exact copy of this material from the USHMM's page on Mengele http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007060, which says
 * The USHMM is not credited for this material. In this edit he adds the following text:
 * The source, the USHMM's biography of Mengele, says:
 * As is obvious, the only difference is the insertion of the words "aged 24yrs" and "physical". In this edit he added the sentence:
 * The source, http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/twins/mengele.html, states:
 * As is clear, whole phrases and sentences are copied verbatim. Moreover, as with all these edits, only the most exculpatory material is chosen, material that puts Mengele in the best possible light, and anything negative is left out. For example, he copies the phrase "became a sort of father figure", but leaves out the preceding explanation., "Since many had immediately been separated from their families upon entering the camp". On the article's Talk: page three weeks ago I pointed out that much of his work was copied directly from the source, but this apparently did not impress him enough to actually remove other plagiarisms in this or other articles. I'm sure if we look carefully through his other edits, we will find more of the same. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As is obvious, the only difference is the insertion of the words "aged 24yrs" and "physical". In this edit he added the sentence:
 * The source, http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/twins/mengele.html, states:
 * As is clear, whole phrases and sentences are copied verbatim. Moreover, as with all these edits, only the most exculpatory material is chosen, material that puts Mengele in the best possible light, and anything negative is left out. For example, he copies the phrase "became a sort of father figure", but leaves out the preceding explanation., "Since many had immediately been separated from their families upon entering the camp". On the article's Talk: page three weeks ago I pointed out that much of his work was copied directly from the source, but this apparently did not impress him enough to actually remove other plagiarisms in this or other articles. I'm sure if we look carefully through his other edits, we will find more of the same. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source, http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/twins/mengele.html, states:
 * As is clear, whole phrases and sentences are copied verbatim. Moreover, as with all these edits, only the most exculpatory material is chosen, material that puts Mengele in the best possible light, and anything negative is left out. For example, he copies the phrase "became a sort of father figure", but leaves out the preceding explanation., "Since many had immediately been separated from their families upon entering the camp". On the article's Talk: page three weeks ago I pointed out that much of his work was copied directly from the source, but this apparently did not impress him enough to actually remove other plagiarisms in this or other articles. I'm sure if we look carefully through his other edits, we will find more of the same. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As is clear, whole phrases and sentences are copied verbatim. Moreover, as with all these edits, only the most exculpatory material is chosen, material that puts Mengele in the best possible light, and anything negative is left out. For example, he copies the phrase "became a sort of father figure", but leaves out the preceding explanation., "Since many had immediately been separated from their families upon entering the camp". On the article's Talk: page three weeks ago I pointed out that much of his work was copied directly from the source, but this apparently did not impress him enough to actually remove other plagiarisms in this or other articles. I'm sure if we look carefully through his other edits, we will find more of the same. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks. I did not realize that you had pointed that out to him; I need to amend the background at his CCI. I've been working on this all morning (as the clocks read in my part of the world), since shortly after 7:00 this morning, and am almost finished. I hope that everything will have been uncovered and removed soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for the record. I am not aware of using Institute for Historical Review as a source and think this is untrue. As you have yourself noted I take considerable care with citing my sources, so anyone can check and see for them self.
 * Secondly Jayjg HAS NOT informed me as you have done about the copyright issue. He did mention something recently but it was so against the spirit of the disagreement being discussed that I assumed it was more wikilawyering and did not learn from that exchange what I have subsequently understood from you.. (Regrettably that is my experience of the man:wikilawyering done with bad faith). Lastly I thank you for your courteous manner and spirit of good faith in correcting me. I am always willing to be corrected and to learn how to improve my editing wiki-skills when done with such good faith. I thank you--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Contributor Copyright Investigation
Because your substantive text contributions have been made to a relatively small group of articles, I have been able to conduct a "CCI" without needing to list it, which is good, because these can sometimes linger for months. You can read brief notes about what I found and how it was addressed here: Contributor copyright investigations/Mystichumwipe. I did find issues in many of your articles; it appears that you may be struggling somewhat between the needs to reliably report what your sources say and the conflicting need to put content into your own words. This can be a challenge, but it's important to work on and conquer it, because copyright is taken very seriously on Wikipedia. It's better to be overly thorough in rewriting than to follow your source too closely, as I'm afraid that future issues are likely to lead to a block.

The best I can give is to blend together facts from various sources (not facts that advance controversial claims; just facts) to avoid drawing too heavily on one and, where controversy is likely to exist, to try to use brief, sourced quotations. The quotations eliminate fear that you will alter your sources, but do have to be used carefully, as over-extensive quotation is also a copyright issue. It's really helpful to use many sources, and to be very concise in what you take from any one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack
No, I was pointing to motive. But, feel free to interpret it any way you like. Joel Why? talk  14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)