User talk:Nikolaus6

Welcome!

 * }

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rule of law has been reverted. Your edit here to Rule of law was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://mysteriousisland.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/avoiding-the-anarchy-of-law/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nikolaus, you've got some interesting material on Rule of Law. I do especially like FA Hayek. But Wikipedia has policies that we must follow.  In my recent reversion of your Rule of Law changes, I've cited WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:POV as the basis. Please take some time to read these guidelines.  Also, I've given a link to WP:BRD. This is Bold -- your initial edits, Revert -- my deletion of them, and now comes Discuss.  Please justify your edits on the Rule of Law talk page.  Happy editing. --S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the general guidelines you mentioned but still confused
Dear Srich32977, I understood your initial removal of my initial edits since they involved references to an external blog and included some opinions of my own rather than quoting the works and opinions of classic works. However I am confused by the latest rejections. I move the reference to F.A. Hayek from the modern history section to a more appropriate section of scholarly works. Why Hayek isn't a reliable source is beyond me. The fiftieth anniversary edition of his classic "The Road to Serfdom" was introduced by renowned scholar and economist Milton Friedman. Also I read the one article you referenced of past opinions on this page and it appears that some dispute that the Medes and Persians had any semblance of the Rule of Law - i.e. the article refers to there being a difference between Rule of Law and the idea of law. I think that is a bit naive, especially since King Darius in the biblical story was faced with the very dilemma of whether to preserve the Rule of Law, i.e. a Rule where even he had to obey the law even though it meant sending his close friend Daniel to the lions. Are you afraid that my biblical references are too religious? I would kindly inform you that I am aware of a very intelligent woman who was an avowed atheist at my high school who taught "The Bible as Literature". While she clearly had no desire to preach about God and Judeo Christian values from the standpoint of a believer, she clearly enjoyed teaching the subject from the standpoint of objectively appreciating a historically important piece of literature, a tome of the ages.

You didn't even like my quotation of Immanuel Kant which seems completely relevant in discussing the notion of Rule of Law as contrasted against the Rule of Men. Nor did you like a quote from Frederic Bastiat concerning keeping the law impartial and agenda free, i.e. preserving the Rule of Law?

So I'm not trying to sound rude or angry, but I'm very confused why you don't approve of any of my edits, in part or in whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaus6 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Nikolaus. Because you are a new editor, I thought that reverting the series of edits would be easier for both of us. That is, you could look at the various policies and make adjustments. Cases in point -- you are looking at Daniel, a Primary Source when reading the Bible, and giving a spin (correct or incorrect) of your own  making.  Please take a look at WP:SYN and WP:OR for guidance (you, as a WP editor, cannot give us your interpretations of these Biblical passages). Kant may have said what you provided, but please provide a WP:RS for this statement so we can WP:V. Put Kant into context, but (again) without POV. And where did Bastiat and Hayek make their statements?  Your fellow editors want to verify, so they will need works, page numbers, etc., and to fulfill those wants/needs you must provide citations, preferably with on-line availability. --S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am beginning to understand. Wikipedia doesn't like any new original ideas even if those ideas are attempted to be presented in an objective manner. So is the WP:OR directive saying that I cannot give my interpretations even if I present them in an objective frame such as "some people are of the opinion that this passage might mean the following... however others believe that such an interpretation is grasping at threads..."? Also are you saying that the Hayek and Bastiat quotes would only be acceptable if I provide them with the page number? Bastiat is classical so the page number would depend on the edition of the work I'm quoting. Does wikipedia require strict format of referencing sources akin to professional works like college thesis where you have to quote works by publisher, author, page number using a very strict format. Or if the author and work is well known such as Bastiat's "The Law" can the quote simply stand as is? Or are you saying that the quote from Bastiat can only stand if I provide e.g. that it was the Penguin Classic 1955 esperante translation edition of Bastiat's 3rd edition of "The Law"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.173.253 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost correct. You are an editor, not an author. You might have your spin on the ideas presented (objective or not), but you have to find a Reliable Source (someone else) that has published the particular ideas/spin. So what if Bastiat is classical. (I've never heard of him.) Readers still need to know where you are coming up with his comments. Also, no Esperanto is allowed. When you cite, please provide English citation. See WP:CTT for more info. Go to those WP:FIVE, etc., mentioned above in the Welcome. Read, and consider. Then your subsequent contributions will be welcome and greatly appreciated. --S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're doing better. Why are there two ISBNs for Hayek? With one book, using one ISBN, we can combine the citation into one footnote multiple times.--S. Rich (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Also, the citation template you used for Hayek uses "pages" to give the total number of pages in the book or multiple pages. The result you have is the plural "pp. 81". If you say "page = 81" it will produce "page 81" in the footnote.14:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks S. Rich for helping me learn the ropes in terms of providing content for wikipedia. As a newbie I was originally frustrated by the pedantics of procedure, but am beginning to realize that without such guidelines the volatility of changes could easily become unmanageable. Likewise original research contributions from say bloggers could lead to endless back and forth contribution wars and wikipedia might devolve into an enormous competitive blogosphere rather than containing objective references and abstracts on scholarly works on various subjects. I'd still love to include some biblical references in the ancient history section -- would it be original research to simply say that the law of the Medes and Persians as quoted in the book of Daniel illustrates a Magna Carta like contract between the King and his people that may have been a precursor to the modern concept of the Rule of Law?


 * If you quote the biblical references and then talk about the import of those passages, you are doing OR. You've got to find what other WP:RS have said about the passages.
 * But do try this -- write up your best effort and post it to the RoL Talk Page as a proposed addition. There are 105 other Wikipedians watching that particular article. Give them some time to read your proposed addition and make comment. (The article talk pages are there for suggestions on improving the article and can lead to some very interesting discussions.) I gotta go now -- participating in the Spartan Race today!--S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)