User talk:Phreebass

Welcome
Hello, Phreebass, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Critical race theory
Hello, I reverted your recent edit to Critical race theory. While it may be true, I dont see how it is relevant to the subject of the article. Please note that Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP do not support using wikipedia articles to put forward personal commentary and opinions. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * regarding your edit summary - you would need to find a third party reliable source that actively discusses how that "provides background and context". Otherwise you are editing in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --  The Red Pen of Doom  20:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, respectfull RPOD. This is becoming a politically charged discussion as we "speak" particularly given the associations of Professor Derrick Bell and Barack Obama. The criticisms of these right-wing judges are being used to legitimize the criticisms by Breitbart compatriots. By mentioning their political affiliations with Reagan, one can at least consider the possibility that said criticisms may be more politically based than based on legal understanding. I therefore respectfully ask that my edits be left to stand, particularly because they make no judgement nor make any opinions for or against with regard to the political backgrounds of both Judges. It was merely reported as additional information.
 * Your personal beliefs do not matter. Neither do mine. What matters is that the content and opinions and analysis within the article are sufficiently supported by previously published material. and that wikipedia editors are not using them in inappropriate ways. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want that analysis in the article, what you need to do is find a reliable source that talks about Conservative appointed judges in context of the subject of the article: Critical Race Theory. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

With respect, again, what qualifies you to make this determination? I've read WP: NPOV and WP:OR, and remain unconvinced that I have violated any of the above due to the exclusion of any opinion. I refer to right-wing/conservative bias not within the article, but as a rationale for why these edits were made. Wikipedia itself mentions on the pages dedicated to both the judges that they were appointed by Reagan. So please explain how adding the words "Reagan nominee" contribute anything more than disclosure of: 1) an estimate of how long they have served on the bench, and 2) how they came to that position of authority? It would seem to me, in fairness, that your insistence on removing those few innocuous references is as much an attempt to obfuscate as mine are an attempt to enlighten. In short, I would request a third opinion by a different editor - as I am beginning to believe your own counter-edits are as politically motivated as you believe mine to be.
 * your edits have been challenged by multiple editors, so there is your third party review right there. If you do not want to contribute to wikipedia within the wikipedia guidelines to provide verifiable content from a neutral point of view, then you should probably look to edit outside of wikipedia such as a personal blog which does not constrict what you say, because wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.-- The Red Pen of Doom  20:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am simply unsophisticated in my use of Wikipedia editing, but again - all I see if "The Red Pen of Doom" in all these replies, and am assuming them all to be from one source. Am I wrong, or do all Wiki editors use this handle? If it is an undisputed fact that President Ronald Reagan did in fact nominate them (not appoint, "nominate"), how by any means can disclosing this association violate either of those terms? Yes, you were kind enough to provide links to WP:NPOV and WP: OR, so please - so we don't have to dance around this any longer, cite the exact line, "chapter and verse" that you believe violates those terms. As I have read and understand them, I've made no violations of neutrality, and because I checked Wikipedia pages for each judge that mentioning their appointments by President Reagan is"original research", then this claim of violation of WP:OR is wholly bogus, unless of course you would prefer that I create the edit using "Reagan nominee, Judge to satisfy the TOS.
 * I am the only person who has directly addressed you on your talk page. But your edit in article space was reverted by another editor, a third party as you had suggested. editor Hammersbach with the edit summary: Undid revision 480882502 by Phreebass (talk) This is really an attempt to provide bias, not context. --  The Red Pen of Doom  22:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that, but as I have asked again, please provide me with more than just your Ivory Tower "editors" opinion of how the inclusion of 7 words (really only 5 words, since "Reagan" and "nominee" are repeated), could be reasonably interpreted as "opinion". It is also hardly OR to merely add the FACT which was verified by checking the Wiki pages for both judges violates the WP:NPOV or WP:OR terms? I'm sorry, but it seems you are merely being obstinate in your objections, which given the clearly neutral nature of my edits seems very much out of place. I offered neither opinion, bias, nor even an inclusion or implication that these perspective were right-wing or politically biased, so there is no NPOV violation. Moreover, classifying someone as a Reagan nominee when this is independently verified by Wiki's own pages cannot possibly be called an OR violation, unless you want the entire passage to be entered as an HTML tag to the other Wiki-page. I am requesting an escalation of this difference of opinion to someone whom you report to. At this point in the discussion I feel fairly confident that your objections are far more politically motivated than is my insistence that they stand as originally entered. What harm comes from providing mere background. That's like saying it's biased to identify someone as "Steven Tyler, singer of Aerosmith" or "Tim Cook, Steve Jobs' successor". It makes little editorial sense aside from your desire to exercise power and control.
 * I will ask you to read WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And I asked you to show me the exact reference within these articles that you feel I have violated. You merely provided yet another link without specifically explaining how or why you feel I have violated any of the myriad Wiki policies. You are merely being obstinate in your refusal to address this request, and my prior request to escalate this irreconcilable difference of opinion. Unless of course your next assertion is that you are the ultimate authority. Again, I respectfully request that you hand this over to someone of higher authority. Incidentally, please consider that because the article in question cites 5 sources of criticism, yet only quote three of the five, and dedicates the most extensive quotations to the words of the two Judges (in separate text blocks), that the inclusion of at least some reference to the political affiliations of those is warranted? There is a perception that judges are some how "above" partisanship, yet we all know that judges in both parties have tendencies toward activism on the bench. I wish to assure you that my intention is to be informative, and if the concern is that we are not pointing out the possibly "liberal academic" perspectives of say Henry Louis Gates, I have no issue providing a balance in this regard. I simply believe that you are objecting on personal, or political grounds and not as an impartial editor. Again, please refer this case up the chain of command if you are unwilling, or unable, or explain in what manner I have transgressed.
 * As a party interested in this subject, I do not see where the proposed edits add any additional information, yet they do add a taint of political bias. If someone wants to know about the motivations of the people who are quoted in an article, they are free to click on their links to get additional information.  As a practice, judges are not supposed to demonstrate political biases in their work.  Considering that Richard Posner is already a respected jurist by both Republicans and Democrats, it makes little sense to attempt to place him in a political frame.  If you can cite a source that disagrees with their critical comments on CRT, you should do so.  Such actions would certainly improve the quality of the material.  Halcrawford (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1) I keep linking to policies because the policies determine what and how articles are created. Articles in Wikipedia are NOT like essays for school or opinion pieces for newspapers or writing a book or a thesis. In those forums you are actively encouraged to gather content together in a way that supports your thesis. But such a method of writing is completely inappropriate for wikipedia. Please actually read the policies.

2) the CRT article currently is a mess. my comments have solely been based on why your suggested edit does not fit wikipedia's criteria for making the article better. I am not standing behind anything else in the article. the fact that the article currently may have other bad stuff in it, is not justification to allow it to get any further down the path of bad. if you want to discuss how other parts of the article can be improved, please take your concerns to the article talk page.
 * actually going back to read the article, it does not appear to be in as bad shape as I had remembered.

3)also since there are now multiple people in this discussion, please sign your posts. You can do that by ending your post with 4 of ~. --  The Red Pen of Doom  12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"Higher authority"
You have also asked about "higher authorities". In Wikipedia, regarding article content, such a body or individual does not exist. The Wikipedia community has determined the policies by consensus and Wikipedia editors work by consensus to determine how to apply the policies to particular articles and their content.

if you want to specifically solicit other editors to give imput, you can use the process described at WP:3O (or for more complicated matters at WP:RFC).

but there is not a "content board" that officially approves article content.-- The Red Pen of Doom  17:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * other places to solicit additional opinions are

-- The Red Pen of Doom  17:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
 * No_original_research/Noticeboard