User talk:Walkinxyz

Welcome to my talk page. I've been editing Wikipedia's philosophy pages, including Reason, Political Freedom and Person (much less in recent years). I was a student of Nikolas Kompridis and although I'm not a professional philosopher, I consider myself to be a part-time Kompridis scholar. My interests include film, political philosophy, and culture.

Frankfurt School
Welcome to Wikipedia! I've noticed your work on the Frankfurt School article, and I would personally like to say that your input is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, there aren't that many people who are very familiar with the subject, so your coming is quite a godsend. I am personally familiar with the works of Adorno and Horkheimer, although I am less familiar with the later works of Habermas and Kompridis (I'm going to have to read them some day!). The article still needs a lot of editing, and I'm sure your knowledge will come in handy.

There are, however, a few things I would like to point out:


 * Make sure your content remains comprehensible, even for people who have no prior background in philosophy.
 * When making references, avoid writing "Ibid." to refer to earlier sources. Considering that the content of pages is often edited heavily, referenced material can easily be moved, thus making "Ibid." references appear wrong or confusing to readers. If you want to avoid copying all the code, your can name your reference: < REFF name=XYZ > URL  and then simply repeat it by using 

Otherwise, keep it up! --m3taphysical (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your last question: from what I know, giving a name to a will only allow you to repeat that exact same reference. If you want to give a different page number, I believe you will have to copy-paste the whole reference and simply change the page number. By the way, I also noticed that there is no existing Nikolas Kompridis article. Perhaps I should let you have the honor of creating it (a small summary would suffice if you are short on time), after which I could help you with technicalities (categorizing, interwiki links, wikification, etc.) Cheers! :) --m3taphysical (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicolas Kompridis
Very nice work! --m3taphysical (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reason
Thanks for your work on Reason. One house keeping thing which comes to my mind after your edits to the intro is whether that section is now (once again) becoming too long and some of it should be moved to a sub-section. No concrete proposal right now, but just seems like it might happen eventually. Maybe you have ideas. I guess it is a natural tendency that the lead grows over time as people add things, and then every now and then some of it probably should move to specialized sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work. I do not know how experienced you are on WP so I post here as encouragement so you don't think my tweaks show I am negative about the work you are doing. I am also a little rushed right now, so sorry for the quick comments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are still working but remember to keep your aims in mind. You simplified the lead and moved stuff to a new section but now you are filling the lead with long technical sentences even more jargony and non-every-day than what you were trying to move out? This is an normal tendency I think, to always try to fit everything near the top of an article. I've certainly done it myself. Remember we should be trying to write something the maximum number of capable people can understand.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My next bit of annoying advice. The new historical section is expanding now, so please make sure you take some time to look at the sections below, which cover a lot of things already. I am not saying the old article structure should never be changed, but try to avoid creating redundant repetition. I'd suggest at least starting by trying to keep the historical section quite limited. You'll get more ideas about the structure and content of the rest of the article as you move down the page anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Continuing thanks. I am very happy that you've got some Kant in there, because that was lacking. Also your chronological section opened up some ideas I could work on such as concerning the pre moderns. I am reading around seeing what else might be handy there, for example whether to mention Pythagoras and Averroism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is–ought problem
I notice Kant not mentioned once in the above article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking you a Kant question
Kant has been blamed for the way Vernunft and Verstand are now used synonymously hasn't he? We have him in the Vernunft article (reason) thanks quite a lot to you. But can you have a look at nous? (And by the way, comments on the overlap of nous, intelligence and understanding are called for here --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A late thanks for your answer. I need to find time to think about the nous article again, and have only been making small adjustments as well as discussing the correct redirects etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, saw your message about arguments. This is a bit far from my interests unfortunately. I am also still struggling to get time for a good editing session on articles such as nous which I have been working on incrementally for a while. But keep making such proposals. Some are bound to work out. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Had not thought of Rorty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope this brightens your day
 Hello Walkinxyz, SwisterTwister has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Argument. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — &mdash; Philogos (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the feedback. I have added references and rephrased some things accordingly. Let me know what you think, either here or on the talk page. Thanks.Walkinxyz (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there
Hello, so we're creating a wikipedia page as part of our english class this year at Clemson University and I've decided to make mine of the list of valid logical forms. I've noticed your fairly active on the argument page so I was wondering if there were any tips you could give me or even just editing my page to make it better. Thanks in advance for any help! User: Pdyoung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdyoung (talk • contribs) 02:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eternal-screenshot.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Eternal-screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to Nature
Hi Walkinxyz,

A while back you made a number of changes to the Appeal to nature page. If this is a subject which still interests you, the article is currently at a crossroads, and needs some input from other editors. It would be great if you could come to the Talk:Appeal_to_nature page and discuss what form you think this article should eventually take. 124.158.16.35 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618827754 your edit] to Nikolas Kompridis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Critical Theory between Past and Future"], Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Feb. 6, 2009.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=619269569 your edit] to Nikolas Kompridis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * authored papers on topics including the philosophy of music under conditions of cultural pluralism "Amidst the Plurality of Voices: Philosophy of Music after Adorno" [http://www.ingentaconnect.

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikolas Kompridis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normativity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikolas Kompridis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recognition. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Critique and Disclosure book cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Critique and Disclosure book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Julian Assange
Concede: "Admit or agree that something is true after first denying or resisting it." I never denied or resisted that what Assange did was journalism. I initially resisted not calling him a journalist. I conceded that he should not be called a journalist, while maintaining that what he did may be widely considered journalism. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you square that circle? If it's widely considered journalism by reliable sources, why should Wikipedia be influenced by a political controversy in omitting his occupation? Walkinxyz (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * sound like: "to seem to be something when heard" Walkinxyz (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you addressing my assertion that you used the word concede inaccurately? I found your reference to "sounds like".  Can you tell me why I would say that you're still being dishonest?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I said it "sounds like" you were conceding the point. If you weren't, that's my mistake. It has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "concede". I have no idea why you say the things you do, but your hostility to basic facts and to grammar itself is astonishing to me. Walkinxyz (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to fixate on splitting phantasmic semantic hairs while ignoring the substance of my arguments. It boils down to this: Why should Wikipedia's statement of someone's occupation be influenced by a political controversy about that person, or by his diminished "reputation"? Walkinxyz (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. I am asking you to acknowledge what I actually said about Assange engaging in acts of journalism.  It sounds like you're projecting when you saying I'm focusing on semantics when I ask you to represent my comments accurately and you instead give me a definition for "sounds like".  No one is saying Wikipedia's statement of his occupation should be influenced by a "political controversy" about Assange or by his "diminished reputation". If you can't represent anything I say accurately we can't have a discussion.  My focus on the word "concede" is a starting off point to ask you to acknowledge my actual statements, but you're misrepresenting my intentions as an obsession with semantics.  So I'll ask you one more time to be charitable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I know what the word concede means, and I used it correctly when I said it sounded like you conceded something. If you didn't concede anything, that's an error of judgment, and I'm sorry, but I can't help what it sounded like to me. Re what I called Assange's "diminished reputation", on May 31, 2019 you suggested that the (extensive) sources prior to 2016 calling him a journalist were not sufficient (even though the sources cited by Thucydides included items as recent as April and May 2019). Specifically, you suggested what was necessary was "finding sources after the 2016 leak of the DNC emails, when his reputation began to change." Why is it necessary to find sources saying he's a journalist after his reputation began to change, if what is at issue here isn't his reputation, but his occupation? Walkinxyz (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not state his occupation based on his reputation, but RS do. There is nuance here.  It's not for us to decide whether he is a journalist.  On the sources calling him a journalist, I would ask you to consider the hypothetical situation where 20 sources introduce him as a journalist, and 300 sources introduce him as a publisher, no sources state that he is "not a journalist", and no sources state that he is "not a publisher".  Based on the numbers alone, we would not introduce him as a journalist.  Then there's the academic article, and the sources discussing the question of whether he is a journalist.  It doesn't make sense for me to just repeat myself, so I would ask you to play the devil's advocate and argue my point for me.  It sounds like you think my argument is in bad faith or at best absurd, when that is not the case.  I have no motivation to not call him a journalist besides my interpretation of the RS and Wikipedia policy.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I would ask you to consider the hypothetical situation where 20 sources introduce Britney Spears as a singer-songwriter, 300 sources introduce her as a singer, no sources state that she is "not a singer," and no sources state that she is "not a songwriter." Based on what reliable sources say about her having written an album of hit songs, I think you would agree that it absolutely would make sense to introduce her as a singer and songwriter (which her Wikipedia page does), even though it's plausible that many, many critics despise her music and even go so far as to ask whether you can "really call her a songwriter" (which people do with writers and artists and musicians all the time). What's the difference with Assange? A political controversy surrounds his actions.
 * I will interpret your arguments charitably if you can indulge me in another exercise first. Take a step back and describe for yourself what the controversy about him being a journalist is actually about. Describe that controversy in your own words, using only facts from reliable sources (not opinion pieces). Is there any reliable source that explicitly casts doubt on his being a journalist for reasons that are not politically charged? If so, what are those (pre/non)-political reasons? Are they factual, well-researched, and numerous enough to call into question the reliability of sources that call him a journalist? If so, maybe there is a controversy about this that can influence Wikipedia's description of his occupation. Walkinxyz (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding Britney Spears, there's so much that could be said about this; it's not a simple comparison. The definition of songwriter is much clearer than journalist.  She has regularly written songs, and I assume RS have called her a songwriter, so it seems appropriate to call her one somewhere in the article.  Although I don't know if it is appropriate to call her a songwriter in the lead because it's not what she's primarily known for, and especially if hypothetically only 20 sources introduced her that way.  I doubt she fits the definition of singer-songwriter, under which her article is categorized.  It doesn't matter if critics despise her music, and if they ask if you can "really call her a songwriter", that just sounds rhetorical.
 * It feels unfair for you to ask me to indulge you when you have not indulged me...but I'll try. The controversy over him being a journalist isn't just political; it's a question of what is a journalist.  The political controversy has lead to many people saying he isn't a journalist, but the question existed before.  On 60 Minutes the reporter asked "Is Julian Assange a journalist?"  She wouldn't have asked that question if...there were no question.  Instead of recognizing my point you focused on the interviewee's answer and discounted the source because it hadn't actually aired.  It may not be citable, but I would hope that it would help convince you.  You asked if there are RS that explicitly cast doubt on his being a journalist.  I believe the scholarly article makes it clear that RS intentionally avoid calling him a journalist.  I don't know what RS would explicitly state that he's not a journalist other than opinion pieces.  We may find non-opnion RS which report on the opinions of others.  I feel like I still haven't heard you acknowledge the argument that media sources which believe he is not a journalist, or believe there is no consensus that he is a journalist, will simply introduce him as something else without stating that he is "not a journalist", so the couple dozen sources which do introduce him that way do not override the ones that do not.  Are there sources which assert that he is a journalist?  I don't think we've seen that outside of opinion pieces.  I think opinion pieces matter.  Who gets to call someone a journalist?  If a newspaper calls him a journalist, where are they getting that information?  Are they basing it on someone's opinion?  Are they basing it off of what they believe is a commonly held definition?  Are they using the word out of carelessness because they didn't realize it was controversial?  We have to look at the full context in the body of RS, not just how 20 newspaper articles introduce him.  I understand you believe other sources call him a journalist by stating "just like other journalists", but I don't see it that way, and I would ask you to indulge me in considering my arguments.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Here again are all these stories: "Vox Sentences: Is Julian Assange a journalist?" These RS report that there is a question about whether he is a journalist.  They do not introduce him as a journalist.  They do not opine whether he is a journalist.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Vox collection of articles is about Assange being charged with espionage. It was published in the immediate wake of those charges, and the articles themselves are all responses to them. It is a "question" in that context because, on that day, the US administration claimed he wasn't a journalist. The AP article explains that the things he is accused of "are indistinguishable from what traditional journalists do on a daily basis," but the US administration disagrees. From the NYT article, "Julian Assange is not a conventional journalist [but] much of what he does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish" from journalism. Again, the US administration disagrees. The Hill article again quotes the US administration disagreeing that he's a journalist. The Politico article describes differences between the Obama administration and the Trump administration about whether or not he's a journalist. The CNN article links to an ostensible "debate" about whether or not he's a journalist, leading to another roundup of other articles, but the only debate actually described in those articles is whether "breaking into the secured computers of the government," which he was accused of in the first set of charges, constitutes journalism (obviously, a non sequitur). It also describes the internal debate within the Justice Department about "the question."
 * Literally every time the question of whether or not Assange is a journalist comes up, it revolves around: 1. crimes he is alleged to have committed; 2. what politicians/political administrations said about him being a journalist; and more rarely, 3. whether or not he performed the research, editing, and due diligence that an investigative reporter normally performs. Numbers 1 and 2 are irrelevant to whether or not he's a journalist. Number 3 can be settled by an investigation into the facts surrounding his reporting, as reported in reliable sources such as Le Monde, not opinions about it.
 * I have actually gone to great lengths to indulge you, by reading every single source you provide. They do not show what you say they show, namely, that there is a credible, non-political debate over whether Assange is a journalist. Instead, they show that the "debate" is through-and-through a political one conjured by the US administration, which was embarrassed by what Wikileaks revealed. And even there, the Obama administration, no fan of Assange, couldn't be persuaded that he wasn't a journalist.
 * Do you believe that a US Presidential administration that has openly declared journalists the "enemy of the people" is a "reliable source" on what constitutes journalism, or who is a journalist? Do you think that such a stance is defensible according to Wikipedia's principles? If not, I would submit that you need to stop holding up their statements as evidence of a "debate". Walkinxyz (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The controversy over him being a journalist isn't just political; it's a question of what is a journalist." If the debate about whether or not Assange is a journalist really rests on the (unsettled) question of what is a journalist, then nobody should be described as a journalist on Wikipedia, because there is currently a debate about it. This, of course, would be absurd.
 * Compare this question to the question "what is art?" about something that hangs in a gallery. Artists and critics ask that question all the time in order to arrive at a better understanding of what it is that they do. It is an internal debate. It isn't rhetorical in the sense that you think the question about Britney Spears is. It's what's known as an open question. The question of who is an artist and who is really just a fraud, just a poseur, is a very interesting one, but it doesn't belong in the first sentence of an artist's biography.
 * Similarly, many analytic philosophers will deny that continental philosophy is real philosophy, as opposed to literature or just plain nonsense. Does that mean continental philosophers should not be described as philosophers by Wikipedia? If you don't understand that question and what it means, you aren't qualified to say there is a "debate" about whether a given individual is a philosopher. If there is a school of philosophy that accepts them as one, then that's just the kind of philosopher they are.
 * If the New York Times describes Assange as "not a conventional journalist", and therefore, by the lights of grammar and the most direct implication, a journalist, and you interpret that to mean there is an internal debate about whether he is a journalist at all, I think you have profoundly misunderstood your own sources. Walkinxyz (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By asking you to indulge me I did not mean for you to read much of the sources. I wanted you to consider my arguments from my perspective.  I feel like you still haven't done that.  To start with just one point, you stated that If the debate about whether or not Assange is a journalist really rests on the (unsettled) question of what is a journalist, then nobody should be described as a journalist on Wikipedia, because there is currently a debate about it. This, of course, would be absurd.  I've tried to address that argument.  Like if the definition in the dictionary were "People who are called journalists and write for the New York Times are journalists.  Other people are journalists too".  I feel like that silly example explains my argument that the definition of journalist is unclear while at the same time many people are clearly journalists.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And I addressed that argument of yours, by pointing out that the definition of "journalist" is very much contested, even for people who write for papers like the New York Times. In that sense, I very much do consider your arguments from your perspective, and I have tried to show you their limitations from within. Because I'm sympathetic to the fact that you're wrestling with this question (and I appreciate that you've gone back and forth on it, and that you don't have any vested interest in not calling him a journalist), but I don't think you've fully thought it through. If we're declining to describe Assange as a journalist because he doesn't cash a cheque from the right newspaper, we're into dangerous territory. If you only mean this as a hypothetical, that's fine, but I'm not sure how it applies concretely to this case. Which other (non-political) ways of defining what a journalist pertain here? I've mentioned some specific ones (research, editing, due diligence) and explained why opinion pieces can't guide us with them. Are there others that I've missed and that can be found in reliable sources? Walkinxyz (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I concede that it's theoretically possible for the precise definition of "journalist" to be contested, such that there is: 1. a set of people who definitely count as journalists; 2. people who definitely don't; and 3. a grey area in between where nobody is totally sure. And perhaps, hypothetically, Assange would fit into #3 depending on the criteria used to make those distinctions. What I'm asking you is, what criteria are you using? Whose definition? Do you agree that it can't be the opinion of US administration officials that decide this? Or whether or not someone is paid by the New York Times? Walkinxyz (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have read the criteria for what is a journalist in the opinion pieces which discuss whether he is a journalist. I'm not using any criteria or choosing any particular definition.  It appears to me based on the sources that the definition of journalist itself is contested, and even the facts of what Julian Assange has done may be contested.  Some have said that because he edited the "Collateral Damage" video that makes him a journalist.  Others have said he is not a journalist because he only (or mostly) dumps material onto the public without editing or curating the information.  I'm not sure exactly what you're asking me, but I don't think it's a problem to describe many people on Wikipedia as journalists.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When some people say one thing, and other people say something else about a topic (especially when it concerns a living person), we need to adjudicate the quality of sources very carefully. Opinion can't be admitted as fact. What I'm asking you is pretty simple. Should US presidential administration officials be considered a reliable source on who is and isn't a journalist by Wikipedia? The President has declared news organizations "the enemy of the people". All of your sources above that question whether Assange is a journalist derive from US administration claims about him. That's what provoked the so-called "question". If a news source published an article with the headline "Was Barack Obama born in Kenya?" and only provided quotes from Donald Trump questioning it, we wouldn't change Obama's biography to omit his birthplace. Walkinxyz (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No I do not think John Demers should be considered a reliable source for who is a journalist.  I don't agree with where you're going with that.  I feel like you still haven't addressed my arguments.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it you who cited him in the discussion? All the articles linked to in the Vox piece about the debate cite him and him only disagreeing that Assange is a journalist. Or in one case, the Trump DoJ that Demers works for. Walkinxyz (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And they all recycle the same quote from him. Walkinxyz (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have to ask you again to argue with me not against me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? We clearly have a sharp disagreement about this. I'm prepared to be civil (and have been), but you're not addressing the substance of my points. That's quite frustrating. Walkinxyz (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like you're not representing my arguments or the stories accurately. I feel like I'm answering a lot of questions but I don't feel like you're considering my arguments charitably.  I want to hear that my arguments are understood before I'm asked to defend them.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. What's the most important single fact or argument that you feel I've distorted or failed to consider? I'll try to understand it as best I can from your point of view. Walkinxyz (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kind of all of it? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[Continuing from the end of the previous indented thread] I mean, you started this thread by saying that I didn't understand the meaning of concede, because you hadn't conceded anything. Fair enough, I'll wear that even though it stings. Let me try to win back your trust in my ability to represent things accurately. You argue that it's possible for somebody to do some journalism and be recognized for it (which is the case with Assange), without that meaning the person is thereby considered a journalist. Will you agree that's one important premise of your argument? Walkinxyz (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll go further, and even risk part of my own argument in trying to show you that I understand what you're saying. People made this argument about Glenn Greenwald after he published the Snowden leaks. He was a blogger and then an opinion columnist before that -- and I think, also a journalist -- but not everyone thought he should be called one. Here's an example of such a perspective that I find interesting, even though I disagree with it: https://www.newsbud.com/2013/12/13/greenwald-omidyar-joint-venture-the-blurring-lines-between-being-a-source-being-a-journalist/ The author has several credentials that would tend to accord her opinion respect in this matter (like Greste), but the column is clearly her subjective take on things. Greenwald's Wikipedia page describes him as a journalist. His work was clearly consequential in many of the exact same ways as Assange's, but also controversial in many of the same ways. Greenwald is also an editor of the outlet that he writes for, The Intercept. He has also won numerous prestigious journalism awards. I don't know whether there was a debate about this on Wikipedia, but there could have been. There are clear parallels between the two cases, and I would be interested to know if you have any thoughts about it. Walkinxyz (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes that's one important premise of my argument, but I don't know if it is a consensus opinion that he has engaged in journalism.
 * I think it's ironic that Sibel Edmonds claims someone isn't a journalist when she herself fails to do basic research. She claims "there is no record ever identifying him as a journalist [before 2013]." The Guardian identified him as a journalist in 2011.  That's just one thing that makes her sound entirely unreliable.  So, my thoughts are that we call Glenn Greenwald a journalist if the majority of RS do and there is no controversy to suggest that the RS who do not call him a journalist believe it is inappropriate to call him one.  The same standards apply.  But this still sounds more like asking me to defend my argument than considering my argument and my evidence.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What you say about Sibel Edmonds is true of Peter Greste. Walkinxyz (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion about Sibel Edmonds' piece is not relevant, but it is on a self published blog.  I don't see how the two people compare.  Also, is hers a very small minority opinion?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not comparing Edmonds to Greste, or NewsBud to the Sydney Morning Herald. I'm saying that, like Edmonds' article, Greste's is riddled with errors and should not be cited as a reliable source. In any case, the relevant comparison is that of Assange to Greenwald. This isn't just my comparison, but that of people like The New York Times' David Carr. In 2013, he framed the "debate" we're writing about now as one of "journalist vs. journalist" and asked:
 * What have Mr. Assange and Mr. Greenwald done to inspire such rancor from other journalists? … The larger sense I get from the criticism directed at [the two] is one of distaste — that they aren’t what we think of as real journalists. Instead, they represent an emerging Fifth Estate composed of leakers, activists and bloggers who threaten those of us in traditional media. They are, as one says, not like us.
 * So, "not like us," and not thought of as "real journalists" because of prejudice and fear, but nonetheless journalists.
 * Edmonds, like those who deny Assange is a journalist, is in fact in the minority of opinion about Greenwald, but not an insignificant one. From The Atlantic in 2014: "Among the dozens of reporters, editors, and commentators who have worked on articles sourced to Edward Snowden, just one, Glenn Greenwald, has been subject to a sustained campaign that seeks to define him as something other than a journalist..
 * What's actually ironic is that you cite an opinion piece by the once-jailed Anonymous activist and satirist Barrett Brown to bolster Greenwald's 2011 credentials as a journalist, when the same questions have circulated about Brown himself:
 * One reason why Brown may not have seen a groundswell of broad support for his cause (although there is an effort to create one) is that he falls in that increasingly large grey area between journalist and activist. The 32-year-old Texan is a member of the shadowy hacker group Anonymous, and for a time was widely quoted as a spokesman for the group, but he is also a journalist who has written for a number of online outlets about the rise of the surveillance state — which arguably puts him in the same camp as Guardian writer Glenn Greenwald, who has been working closely with Edward Snowden.
 * Wikipedia's page on Brown also refers to him as a journalist. Given the close similarities between Assange, Greenwald, and Brown (controversial political figures who work on the boundary between establishment journalism and digital advocacy, between leaking and writing, being a source and being a publisher), it seems clear to me that the Assange article is out of step with the way people like him are typically described on Wikipedia. Walkinxyz (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you doing?  This is truly tiresome.  I've asked you repeatedly to consider my arguments, which you have barely done. I want to work collaboratively to find the right answer, not to be argued against.  I've told you that the same standard would apply to Greenwald as Assange; turning the conversation to an argument about Greenwald is pointless, and I'm seeing the same dismaying behavior.  For instance, you did precisely compare Edmonds to Greste, and then you denied it.  I pointed out Edmonds was an unreliable, self-published source, and instead of verifying the inaccuracy of her claims yourself you criticized the random journalist I happened to cite (who is published in a reliable source regardless).  You found one reliable source that describes a debate about Greenwald.  Take it to Talk:Glenn Greenwald. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've completely misunderstood everything I've said, and I'm convinced now that it isn't my fault at all. I'm not sure that it's deliberate on your part, but it certainly seems helpless. I didn't compare Edmonds to Greste because I thought Edmonds was a reliable source. I compared them because Peter Greste didn't do basic research on Assange. I don't think either of them should be cited. Yet Greste's article is currently supporting the claim in the lede that "some people" disagree that he's a journalist. That's truly pathetic. His article is just demonstrably false. Edmonds' argument was interesting not because she's a reliable source, but because she makes a compelling argument that Greenwald can be seen as more source than journalist, which is also what many (misinformed) people say about Assange. My argument is that this type of "controversy" has no place here. It hasn't been given a place for Brown or Greenwald, and it shouldn't be for Assange, either. Assange is being held to a different standard on Wikipedia than other people are and would be. That's my point. As far as I can tell, we're finished here. You are an expert at moving the goalposts of what you require for working collaboratively to find the right answer. You haven't even bothered to read and understand your own sources, let alone my side of the argument. And you've painted yourself as a victim when asked simply to adhere to standards of reliability that are the norm on Wikipedia, and to not constantly cite politically-charged and misinformed opinion. Goodbye. Walkinxyz (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You: "The author [Edmonds] has several credentials that would tend to accord her opinion respect in this matter (like Greste),"
 * You: "What you say about Sibel Edmonds is true of Peter Greste."
 * Me: "I don't see how the two people compare."
 * You: "I'm not comparing Edmonds to Greste,"
 * Me: "you did precisely compare Edmonds to Greste, and then you denied it."
 * You: "I didn't compare Edmonds to Greste because I thought Edmonds was a reliable source. I compared them because Peter Greste didn't do basic research on Assange."
 * So, you compared them twice, then you denied comparing them, then you admitted comparing them. If you've "convinced" yourself you have no part in the dysfunction of this discussion, you must be able to convince yourself of a lot.  Admitting your problem is half the battle.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be generous and continue to indulge you, despite my better judgment.


 * Me: "Peter Greste is sadly misinformed and distorts the facts" (June 3 on JA talk page -- don't blame you if you missed it)
 * Me: Edmonds "has several credentials that would tend to accord her opinion respect in this matter (like Greste), but [what matters is that] "the column is clearly her subjective take on things" [comparing the subjective quality of the two views, not the two people]
 * You: Edmonds "fails to do basic research"
 * Me: That "is true of Peter Greste." [a comparison of their actions, not the people]
 * You: "I don't see how the two people compare."
 * Me: "[I'm comparing their shoddy writing, and anyway] the relevant comparison is that of Assange to Greenwald"
 * You "So, you compared them twice, then you denied comparing them, then you admitted comparing them."


 * This is a lot like the issue about the word "conceded". You didn't concede anything, but it sounded to me like you did. You then derailed the discussion by saying I had therefore missed the meaning of the word "conceded" -- which, if it isn't misunderstanding what "sounds like" means, is a mean-spirited dig. You seem to do this kind of derailing a lot.
 * Now you're insisting that I compared people, that I denied it, that I admitted it. This drama must be very exciting for you, but it's rather far from what is at issue. You've plainly ignored the wider meaning of what I wrote. I didn't deny putting Greste and Edmonds together in a sentence, I denied that comparing them as people is what I was getting at. Please be charitable here, to use your own expression. Or else get off my talk page. Thanks. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Similarly, I'm not going to the Talk page about Greenwald's article, because it's not about him. You have cited the wider opinionated debate about "what is a journalist" to support removing the description of Assange as one. I've given you two RS and two wider opinion pieces to show that exact debate includes Greenwald, for the same reasons. Wikipedia doesn't therefore have a problem calling him a journalist. Nor should we. He is one per RS. So is Brown and so is Assange.


 * If you still disagree with me, by this point, I don't really care. Tell someone else about the great 2019 drama of the Wikipedia Editor Who Thought You Conceded Something When You Didn't, and Who Made Comparisons That He Wasn't Himself Even Aware Of. I'm not interested. Walkinxyz (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The most charitable I could be is to say you are unable to see things from others' perspectives. But it's worse than that.   Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, I won't be seeking any lessons in charity from you. All the best. Walkinxyz (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The arts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)