User talk:Nccondor23

William B. Allen
No other entries in category African American political scientist are identified by their ideological orientatio. Also, regarding, "He has authored The Imaginative Conservative and Re-thinking Uncle Tom," the former is inaccurate and the latter is duplicative - see: Select bibliography entry #3: Re-Thinking Uncle Tom: The Political Philosophy of H. B. Stowe (Lexington Books), 2008. OckRaz talk 21:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * African American political scientist is NOT a "category." What is wrong with you? His political ideologies are absolutely not only relevant but important.
 * He's an author at The Imaginative Conservative. I'll fix that typo.
 * Listing his more important works outside of a "select Bibliography" is fair game, which includes The Uncle Tom book AND his work with Hillsdale AND appearing on Ben Shapiro's show.
 * Wiki is supposed to be about truth, NOT your personal opinion. Nccondor23 (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * oh, so it is a category. gross! Nccondor23 (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * why isn't he listed as an American political scientist? what's going on with wiki!!! Nccondor23 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it's a smaller category, and i checked all the other pages in it. checking every political scientist would have taken a long time. a smaller category like afr am poli sci's can be checked relatively quickly, which is why i chose it: to look at the standard for writing the lead paragraph. OckRaz talk 23:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * he's an American political scientist. Filing him elsewhere is...well, I'll let you decide Nccondor23 (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add him to the broader category then. It may take a little bit. I'll need to look up what the process is. (I'm not the one who assigned the current categories.) OckRaz <b style="color:Green;">talk</b> 00:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not fair game to say "Uncle Tom" book when it's not about Uncle Tom (a fictional character whose name became an epithet), but "The Political Philosophy of H. B. Stowe," (the author of the novel) which becomes obvious when the full title is used - which it already was in the bibliography before your addition to the lead. I've added the fact that he's a contributor to Imprimus and Imaginative Conservative to the publication section. <b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">Raz</b> <b style="color:Green;">talk</b> 23:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The name of the book is "Re-thinking Uncle Tom" the subhead is "The Political Philosophy of H. B. Stowe", don't get it twisted
 * people are going to be looking at this page for a reason, it should be factual and have relevant and current content where people can find it easily. It is counter-factual to hide the truth. He's an unabashed, outspoken conservative, there is no honest reason to hide it.
 * I'll get to his role in the African American Studies workgroup in Florida soon enough. Nccondor23 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. I didn't remove a reference to the book. It was already in the article in the list of publications. You singled out that particular book in the lead paragraph (why that one?) and didn't use the full title. You didn't add any new information to what had been there beforehand, but instead chose to emphasize one particular publication (randomly? based on your opinion of importance?) without even using the correct title. As far as his being a conservative, everyone has political views, and that includes political science professors. If we start going through the pages of every scholar and labeling them by their politics, we'd have civil war amongst the editors. <b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">Raz</b> <b style="color:Green;">talk</b> 23:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Magnolia677 was right - we should discuss this on the appropriate talk page. That's my fault for starting a conversation here. i was just afraid of a back and forth edit war between you and me, so i wrote on your page. For matters about the content itself we should go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_B._Allen <b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">Raz</b> <b style="color:Green;">talk</b> 23:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at the cover of the book (Google it). The title is "Rethinking Uncle Tom"
 * the subhead is The Political Thought of HBS...
 * all I did was leave out the subhead, which is common. You merely have it in a selected reference section, but it is worth noting his notable books in the narrative.
 * But you clearly don't want this particular political scientists political views to be made clear on wikipedia. I question your motive for that. Nccondor23 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WADR, given that I have reason to believe you have an axe to grind over his participation in a curriculum study panel, it seems prejudicial to edit as you did. One might infer that you wished to send a message to casual readers that he wants people to think it's good to 'be an Uncle Tom' when his actual work was analyzing Harriet Beecher Stowe's philosophy.
 * Also, I have no objection to having his political orientation in the article provided that the inclusion isn't an aberration from the way that the encyclopedia treats scholars generally. If it satisfies the criteria for inclusion, then that's fine.
 * You can't just add any fact you want because it suits you (or perhaps because you want to use it as part of a strategy to discredit him). Can I put in the article whether someone is a vegetarian or teetotaler? Yes, if it's germane and properly sourced but otherwise, no. For example if a philosopher is noteworthy for writing about animal rights, and in that context mentions that he's a vegetarian and that it is related to his ethical theories, then you can add it if you can source it. If it's a professor of music theory who doesn't eat meat because he thinks it's good for his health, then you can't include it. <b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">Raz</b> <b style="color:Green;">talk</b> 00:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. And he is a conservative political scientist.
 * It is true.
 * It is relevant.
 * It is important.
 * Why would wiki readers not want to know what the most relevant and important truth about a person is upon reading about them. Isn't that what an opening paragraph is for? It is not bias to blandly state the truth. He would not deny he is a conservative political scientist. I am sure he is proud of it.
 * I see from your user page that you want to be politically agnostic, but it is not agnostic to want to bury somebody's politics at the very end of an article in order to appear agnostic.
 * We need to be able to say true things, out loud, without shame. You are trying to suppress (or hide or delay) the truth, because of your political un-affiliation. That is a form of bias.
 * wrt to the title of his book, HE named it that. You are actually trying to diminish HIS voice, not mine. Nccondor23 (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't agree with much of what you want, but I made it so anyway, despite the fact that he in the American Social Scientists category but NOT the American Political Scientists. Nothing I've added is false in any way. Nccondor23 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * he's in 2 dozen categories, though some probably falsely, you've cherry picked one, out of expediency. Please show me the dictate that this wiki page must follow a standard of your choosing. Nccondor23 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * no. i checked other articles of the same type and found you wanted to cherry pick one article and write it differently from all the others. now if you want to have politics identified in the lead, then the burden of proof is on you to show it's not an aberration.
 * you need to provide a list of articles about academics that are written your way. <b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">Raz</b> <b style="color:Green;">talk</b> 00:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are literally thousands of pages within those categories, thousands. You have by decree decided which category this page must emulate and when I asked you to back it up with some documentation, you try to flip it back on me.
 * There is a standard for BLP's. Nowhere in that standard does it say that political ideology is off-limits in the opening paragraph. You have just unilaterally decided that it must be that way. I posit that is because of political bias.
 * My interest in stating that he is a conservative political scientist is in that
 * 1) it is true
 * 2) it is important, far more important than what he did in the 80s (as a conservative political scientist) Nccondor23 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is that it's important, but you don't write reference works based on your personal opinions.
 *  There are literally thousands of pages within those categories, thousands.
 * Awesome. Which articles that share a category with him focus on the politics of the scholar in the lead. Articles about politicians do that, but he's an academic not a politician. If there's thousands of biographical articles about living scholars that do that it should be super easy to list some of them. I didn't see a single one but i only spent a half hour looking. <b style="color:Purple;">Ock</b><b style="color:Black;">Raz</b> <b style="color:Green;">talk</b> 00:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He is a political scholar.
 * Are you going to tell me William F. Buckley's page should not prominently mention his political ideology?
 * William B. Allen is not an entomologist. He operates in the political sphere.
 * It is true.
 * It is relevant.
 * It is important (that is not just MY opinion).
 * You are doing every user of wikipedia a disservice. Nccondor23 (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are doing every user of wikipedia a disservice. Nccondor23 (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023
Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, William B. Allen, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. 'Also, please discuss any content disputes on the article talk page. Thank you!' Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * could you be more specific? Nccondor23 (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * oh Magnolia, how disingenious you are:
 * none of this is cited yet you left it in, among many other examples, did Ockham's razor call you for help?
 * "He also has served on the boards of the Hoover Institution (1995–) and St. John's College (1989–). Since 2002, he has been Academic Advisor and Faculty Member at the Institute for Responsible Citizenship in Washington, D.C." Nccondor23 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I merely replied to someone who deletes my edits for political reasons...you're talking to the wrong person here, on both counts Nccondor23 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)