User talk:Srich32977/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Reversion on Rothbard

Rich, which RFC are you referring to? I was under the impression that the RFC regarding whether "political theorist" or "economist" should go in the lead paragraph didn't relate to the question of what to put under "school" above the picture of Murray. Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the RfC should be resolved first. If we say he's primarily an economist, then characterizing his school is the next step. If we go with political thinker, then the whole economist infobox can be replaced with scholar, whatever. At that point some coloring of the infobox is appropriate. But the {{infobox economist}} template parameters do not include an anarco-capitalist color. (Perhaps one should be added to the parameters – that is another question.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable enough compromise. If the consensus ends up being political theorist, I'll restore an-cap.Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I went through a related experience on Peter Schiff where several users steadfastly claimed he is an economist and insisted he be cast as such. If it turns out that Rothbard is recognized as a political theorist, the infobox template needs to be changed, not just the label of his thought. I did this once a while back but it was undone back to the infobox economist template so if you look through the history you can see the other template and its categories. I like the black on yellow for Rothbard, as those are the colors of the anarchist flag according to WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to start up something to resolve whether the infobox economist template should include a parameter for a color for anarchists. In fact, there are 30 different schools listed in Schools of economic thought, but only 10 schools in the infobox template have color designations. – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard doesn't meet WP's criteria to be called an "economist" and the infobox template should be replaced with one that suits his notable activities. SPECIFICO talk 13:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What WP criteria are you referring to? Something in policy or guidelines or in the essays? If such criteria isn't available in print, then the RfC will be the final word. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My Edit

Would you mind to explain why my edit was promotional. Aha... (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just what is "jwlawoffice.com"? An article about PI lawyers in Tampa? If so, it is not WP:RS (and it does not provide encyclopedic info about lawyers in general). Why does it have Facebook & Twitter links and a "contact us" link? Those links certainly indicate a promotional purpose. With these factors in mind, jwlawoffice is not appropriate for WP. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: March Against Monsanto

Thank you for your copyedits. Unfortunately, it looks like you erroneously removed important information from this article while you were copyediting. According to your edit summary, you also claimed to "remove tangential info" about the Senate's rejection of an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of GM foods.[1] This information is not "tangential", as the entire protest movement is based on the lack of legal labeling of GM foods. Additionally, the government's rejection of this amendment was part of the protests. I'm most curious why you would remove this as "tangential" when this forms the foundation of the entire movement. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

See also: Talk:March Against Monsanto#Recent deletions. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Three days before the protests there was a full moon. So? While the Senate may have done something, how did that impact the protests? What does the source say about the Senate's action upon the protests? Did the protestors say something about this? (Yes, I repeat myself, repeat myself.) Until the connection is made, the info is tangential. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The full moon has no connection to the protests. The lack of labeling laws forms the foundation for the movement. Days before the international march, the Senate rejected a proposal for mandatory labeling, angering the protesters even further and giving them additional material to protest about at the marches. This is not tangential in any way, it is the foundation of the movement, namely, the lack of lableing laws. I agree that this can be explained in more detail, but outright deletion of this historical fact connected to the timeline is unprecedented. The "connection" already exists. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've got the article on my watchlist. Will reply there as needed. But at the moment it's getting late so I might ignore for a while. – S. Rich (talk)

There is no hurry. What would help me in the near future is if you were to state your criteria for inclusion so that I know you won't remove it. Good night. Viriditas (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ForwardObserver85

Good evening. Just replying to your comment on my talk page. Operation environment? Regards, ForwardObserver85 07:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs)

Bradley Manning

Hello Srich32977, I am a new to editing and I was having trouble adding the source to the United States v Bradley Manning article. I added it now so it should be OK.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonrmazurek (talk • contribs) 12:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Jason. The Manning support organization is not an acceptable reliable source. I've commented more on your talk page. For more info on what's going on recently, see the Washington Post article of July 19, 2013, written by Julie Tate. – S. Rich (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert P. Murphy Biblical literalism

The other reader's misleading edit to Robert P. Murphy, implying that he does not believe in the literal word of the Bible, has been removed by another editor. The edit was misleading because it took a phrase out of context about how Genesis is not a "literal chronology". (bereft of Murphy's qualifying statements, which indicate that this statement is not at all to be read as a rejection of creationism, and indeed re-affirms Murphy's denialism.

One can believe something literally true and literally happened while also believing that the writer who wrote about it (or "saw" the creation of the world, in Murphy's words) used metaphors to convey what s/he saw. That is the position of Christian fundamentalist intellectuals, from Falwell to Robertson to Huckabee to Doc Murphy. Steeletrap (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the section as undue. Murphy's a finance/econ guy (of whatever sort) and putting in a whole section devoted to his denialist beliefs isn't encyclopedic. So what if he's written about his beliefs? LewRockwell.com has given him a platform, but we don't need to crucify him or praise him either way for using it. In any event, labeling his beliefs as "denialism", with links, is wrong. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Murphy is not notable as an "economist"; he is notable as a pundit on political and social matters. This does include advocacy of anarcho-capitalism, but "economics" and "finance" are tangential to other parts of Murphy's notable work.Steeletrap (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

20:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Murphy is not a finance/econ guy so much as a pundit, promoter, and media personality of the Misean community. He follows the Lew Rockwell school -- attract as much attention as possible in order to get folks to hear the underlying message. He's like Al Sharpton or William Kuntsler or others who blended self-promotion with their work. I've left comments on the article talk page. I continue to be disappointed that editors want to sanitize these maverick Austrians like Soto, Hoppe, and Murphy? Why? They don't self-sanitize, so why is it our role to make them sound more mainstream? Let's appreciate them for what they are. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of denialism description from Murphy

Denialism is the descriptively appropriate description of the act of denying established fact; see: AIDS Denial, Holocaust Denial; while Wikipedia does not yet have a page for evolution denial, it explicitly equates rejection of evolution with denialism here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Evolution_denialism)

Your new (very general) title of the Murphy denial section is descriptively inadequate in that it doesn't clearly convey what Murphy is actually saying. Whether you or most people are inclined to ascribe negative values to denial is not pertinent; denial is a factual description of what Murphy is doing, and it's our job to bring the facts to our readers. Steeletrap (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Steele, when you use the redirecting link evolution denial, twice, it indicates a certain view. Please note that the main article/target page (for the redirect) does not use the word "denial". Please discuss this on the Murphy talk page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The statement "that Murphy is a denialist" is a statement of fact. That most people think being a denialist is bad/disasteful does not make the statement "Murphy denied evolution " a value judgment. That statement is a fact, just like it is a fact (and not a value judgment) to call Harry Elmer Barnes a Holocaust denier. Steeletrap (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, please discuss this on the Murphy talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi there - Noticed you have contributed to the Slalom Consulting Page. Would you be interested in receiving factual information from Slalom to contribute to the page in the future? I work on behalf of Slalom representing their communications program. JRYamani (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. No. My edit was limited to removing some vandalism. Moreover, I see that the Slalom article was deleted in the past as non-notable. I wonder if it would survive another deletion. I do not intend to be involved either way. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

From good article to incoherent

The article is now full of unsourced nonsense, completely illogical phrases that mean nothing, and text inserted purely to attack the character of the organization. The disruptive editing continues now with even more aggression. The article has become a joke. And I foolishly thought the sad state of the article in the past was bad. I really wanted to argue for open source information, even though my profession is broadly against it. I can still say that the nay sayers are wrong in their reasons why, but they are absolutely correct about the results. Thank you for all your help. A sad end for a promising idea. --Abel (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Not an ending, by any means. – S. Rich (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It is for me. --Abel (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. Years to get to good article. Minutes to be reduced to useless crap. How is that not exactly the opposite of what this project is supposed to be doing? Abel (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but this just shows me that the entire system is producing the opposite of the stated mission. Perverse incentives. Abel (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you get my point. We are all pushing on a WP:POLE. You don't like the way a lot of edits have tilted the pole. So, you get back up and push again. Not necessarily on the FEE article, though. There are lots of other areas that need a good push in the right direction. I've been watching the FEE article, and I'm not happy with some of the results. So I'm sitting back, with it simmering on my watchlist, waiting for the hot and heavy edits to subside. Will I be able to get back to what you had achieved? Certainly not. WP is too dynamic for that. But I think future edits will be helpful, no matter who they come from. That is from an old crusty bastard like me, or someone else. Is the entire system at fault? If so, then you've got to post a {{retired}} template on your userpage and walk away. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely get the pole pushing metaphor. My problem is that it took years of learning and research to get the article into something useful to people what want to learn about and organization that they know nothing about, and mere minutes to undo all that work by one person with an ax to grind. Multiple complaints were made, yet the result was just an open warrant for the one person who is obviously disrupting to keep on destroying. In my mind, that makes this entire project a joke. People who mean well will have to put in like 3,000 times more work than people who do not mean well. There is something horribly wrong with that. Abel (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Education Management Corporation (ping)

Hi there, S. Rich. Looks like the EDMC article has remained quiet since our discussion last week; if you're still available to look at my suggestions on the Talk page, let me know! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You are on my things to do list for the week! – S. Rich (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks in advance! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

affluence/high-income/well-educated terminology

While I sort of understand where you are coming from and fair enough at that, there is great discrepancy amongst city articles that are of upper middle class to upper class status. please see Marina_Del_Rey, Laguna_Niguel, Laguna_Beach, Carlsbad,_California, Coronado,_California, and West_Hills,_Los_Angeles. The aforementioned examples were provided as well-known wealthy cities that arbitrarily popped into my head to illustrate said discrepancy - there are a great deal more.

If you wouldn't mind sharing why this is, or why certain cities are allowed the nomenclature while others aren't (if you know), I would be really appreciative. If the goal is to comb through the cities or to implement some new rule to allow for standardisation, that would be fantastic as well, for I'd take it that if I were to remove, for instance, "affluent" from Laguna_Beach's introduction there may be backlash - there is bound to be backlash from at least one member (likely very many, really) monitoring any of the cities listing affluence within the introductory paragraphs of associated articles. There was certainly a strong disconcerting sense when confronted with the notion that some cities are allowed the descriptor while others are not and that needs to be rectified.

I'm totally not trying to push back or be disrespectful - I really am just genuinely curious as I'm trying to become more involved in the Wikipedia process.

Cheers! Basuraeuropea (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for thanking me for my demographic contributions to the Temecula page! I'm making Wikipedia progress! Basuraeuropea (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, some articles do have such descriptions. But they are wrong. Compare affluent cities with poor cities. It would be improper to describe them as "impoverished", "down-trodden", "poor", etc. A lot of these nice, and nicely described cities get the such descriptions because of editors who are promoting them. My interest is in Riverside County, so I can't go beyond my interest and clean up every such description. – S. Rich (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you very much for explaining - the contrasting example provides for a stark and total understanding. Thanks again! Basuraeuropea (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Interested in helping with Education Management Corporation?

Hi, S. Rich. I came across your username when I was looking through the revision history for the Education Management Corporation article. I see that you haven't edited the page in some time, but perhaps since you were actively involved once, you might be interested in looking at a suggestion I posted on the Talk page there?

I read through the COI Declaration on your Talk page and understand that you have a connection to a private California law school, so I trust you'll only participate here if this does not relate to your COI. I ask this because I too have a COI with this topic: I am working as a consultant to EDMC. And this is why I am seeking out editors to assist with the changes I'd like to see made instead of making the changes myself.

Anyway, that's a long way of saying I'm currently looking for editors to review a new draft to replace the Programs section which currently lacks citations and needs to be updated. If you can help, the request on the Talk page explains the changes in more detail and the revised draft is in my user space here: User:WWB Too/EDMC (Programs). Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I shall look -- but not today. What you can do is post something on the EDMC talk page about proposed language you have, along with your COI caveat. Either way, I'll give MHO tomorrow or Thursday. Remind me on Friday if I forget. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC) I shudda looked at the TP first. More later. 23:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No probs! Thanks for the speedy reply. I'll be out of pocket Friday, but I'll respond or ping you on Monday, depending! Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ping me Monday, please. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

{{edit request}} looks good. I commented on the EDMC talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

EDMC follow-up

Hello again, S. Rich! Thanks very much for looking at my revised section, and I'm very glad you think it's good to add. One thing I may not have emphasized enough in my first message is that I think I should not be the one to implement these changes. While I recognize it is not strictly against COI guidelines, it does run afoul of Jimbo's position that editors with a financial COI never directly edit articles (his thoughts on that here). Given these circumstances, would you be willing to move the section over? Let me know what you think. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I have now just added the connected contributor template to the Talk page. I usually do that when I finish making suggestions to an article, but since this one is ongoing, it certainly makes sense to add now. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

TJSL Posts

Why are you deleting perfectly valid posts about our law school?

Yesterday, it appears you removed several names we added of noted faculty members, and also our Solo Practitioners Center.

What is your justification for deleting our information?

And what is your agenda?

Chris Saunders Media Relations Director Thomas Jefferson School of Law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.227.130 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to User talk:Saunders.cj for my response. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Some of your recent interactions with editor Steeletrap appear to be veering toward WP:DISRUPT, e.g. this mention of Steeletrap: [2]. Steeletrap is still a relatively recent arrival here and has previously expressed concern to you. The recurrence, even if inadvertent, is therefore unfortunate. Please take a deep breath and consider using DR or RfC on the North matter. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I applaud SPECIFICO for bringing this matter to your attention. I am concerned that you, rich, are holding my edits to a different standard than others you encounter. A great number of BLP entries which we have edited together have paraphrased material from original sources which represent the views of the LP. That's all I did in the edits you're objecting to. Steeletrap (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I did take a deep breath and I revised the edit to which you refer to. Thirteen minutes later this change was made [3]. – S. Rich (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Your recent posting on the Libertarianism article talk page here [4] appears to violate WP guidance concerning canvassing. Please review the policy. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It was entirely inadvertent. I thought I was on the Libertarianism Project talk page. The posting has been removed. (And I don't think that I shall post there as North is not a libertarian or economist.)

Still, you might note that Steele has posted to some Project talk pages as well -- which inspired my misplaced libertarian posting. Here [5] & here [6] the language is completely straightforward, and I copied Steele's language. In this one [7] Steele editorializes about the origins of North's views. But here [8] & here [9] Steele adds language that is obviously directed toward the interests of the two project members. You might ask Steele to modify the language in the last three. Improper Anchoring my concern, but is a minor one. – S. Rich (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Libertarian Project is not listed on the talk page and my comment stands. Please review policy on canvassing. Please discuss content, not editors. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

North is categorized as a libertarian (check the bottom of the article page), thus it is entirely proper to post a notice on that project page. (Which I do not intend to do.) Your admonition about "content, not editors" is misplaced. I was commenting on how Steele had worded her/his notice (i.e., the content of his/her posting). I did not comment on Steele in any personal manner whatsoever period end-of-story please stop talking through your hat give me a break etc. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the distinction: On for example the Rothbard article talk page, the article is tagged as of interest to the Libertarian Project. Notification of RfC's is courteous and entirely suitable. In the case of North, it's different. The category link on the bottom of the page -- the correctness of which, in this case, is debatable to say the very least -- is not justification for what may appear to be votestacking. I'll also ask you yet again to reflect on expressing yourself without personal animosity, expressions of your personal frustration, and what appears to be an incivil and indignant edge to many of your comments over the past few weeks. Please consider. I have no more to say on the canvassing issue, take it for what it's worth. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

BLP concerns

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. Couldn't figure out how Biog1 worked so used 2. In any case, you really have to start being more strict about these obvious BLP violations and going to WP:BLPN. Even though I'm sufficiently disgusted with lax BLP enforcement here, seeing that some editors get it on that bio talk page heartened me. Maybe you should take them more seriously and not be influenced by two colleagues/collaborators whose explicit negative biases have been discussed all over Wikipedia. User:Carolmooredc 16:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? And if you can't figure out how a template works, don't use it and don't substitute ersatz templates. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re talk page postings, thanks for the reminder. I'm sure you'll do the same WRT this page as well. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily restoring old sub-titles

Users such as Stalwart have made legitimate arguments about the use of the word "controversial" and the number of sub-headings; I agree with them. However, all the dramatic post-RfC reversions have made the RfC virtually impossible to follow. Do you think we should then (temporarily) revert the North page to its prior form? Steeletrap (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've redone the question in the RfC and the subject sections still have the OR/Primary templates. I think the templates will direct RfC commentators to the particular areas. IOW, no change needed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, although the RfC may have been poorly formulated and implemented it cannot help matters to change the statement of the matter after at least nine editors have stated their views. Please undo your change of the statement of the matter under consideration. It will only lead to further confusion and needless contention. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The various RfC Postings, Project Talk Page Postings, Individual userpage postings all link to the same RfC. The issue involved, whether "'Views' contain improper Primary Source material or constitute OR?" remains the same. E.g., is there "improper primary source material or OR"? It seems well-enough defined to have allowed for editors to make their comments. Also, the prior discussion Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#Controversial_views_section seemed focused enough. Even though the question of BLP has been raised, I do not think BLP unduly complicates the discussion. In any event, if you have a suggestion to improve the statement of the matter, please post it in the threaded discussion. I'm sure all concerned would be happy to see and discuss whatever improvements can be made. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no suggestions or opinions. I only stated the obvious: With many editors responding to an RfC, each of them should be responding to the same question so that there can be no confusion or fragmentation as to the outcome. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Need to close or restart RfC

This is a fiasco, Rich. Since the RfC was phrased so unspecifically, people are responding to different things. User Gaijin, for instance, " who voted "inappropriate" only objected to the use of the term "controversial" (which we agree should be deleted, and now has been deleted) in describing north's views. It is absurd to lump Gaijin's view with those she or he does not endorse, simply because Gaijin used the word "inappropriate" to describe her or his views.

In short, we need to start a new RfC which directly relates to the section titles. As of now, we are making little progress other than obscuring the issue. Steeletrap (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard RfC

FYI: [10]. I think that direct contravention of the RfC after explicit consensus at the close is highly problematic. For your consideration. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Manning Source

It was a copy of a US Army report that is publicly available. I had trouble with the link but I was able to read the report from the Google cache. (EDIT: I just tried the link again without a cache and it worked perfectly. There may just be a difficulty loading it the first time around. Just to verify, the link is entirely adequate) I think it is important to note that an official inquiry found that there were armed members of the group (as the report indicates, carrying an RPG and an AKM) accompanying the journalists, and it wasn't simply a case of mistaking the cameras of the Reuters staff for weapons. --220.239.109.57 (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/06/6--2nd.brigade.combat.team.15-6.investigation.pdf Try this link. I have had no difficulty loading it. It is an official government source hosted on the website of a major media organisation. --220.239.109.57 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

North econ methodology

I would reconsider your view on merging the "metholodogy" section into the section about North's favored social order. North's methodology (rooted in the bible et al) underlies all of his views, and understanding it helps readers to contextualize and understand the full body of North's work. While the length of the section is short, it is seminal in understanding North's economic and political views; and it will probably eventually be expanded. Steeletrap (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

EDMC (just one more time)

Hi there, me again! After you gave thumbs up on the proposed EDMC update last week, I left a note here explaining why I avoid directing in these circumstances (as I've done since early 2012). If you have the time to move the updated section into the live article, that would be great. If not, I'll try somewhere like WP:CO-OP by week's end. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I can give it a try later today -- I hope. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Lines in ANI

By what authority or policy to you insert lines in an active ongoing ANI discussion? Obviously the discussion did not end at the point where carolmooredc appeared to be conceding and promised to change her behavior. She then failed to change her behavior and the ANI thread continued with Steeletrap's agreement nullified by her reversal. There's ongoing discussion and no consensus that the discussion is currently resolved. Please remove your lines. Since several comments have been made just in the past 12 hours, it's clear that others do not share your opinion that the conversation is fruitless. If you believe that the discussion has reached a conclusion and is ready for closure, you could request closure but I see no basis on which you may draw lines around part of the discussion. Please remove them and, if you wish, join in the conversation. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Such pettifoggery. You must ask for authority or policy because you can't find any. Okay, I don't know if there is any policy one way or the other. So what? I was tempted, for half-a-second, to cut & paste your comment into the discussion, but decided that it was too trivial to include. Moreover, a C&P may have simply added to the stilly, pointless, useless drama. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that you're angry and that you are denigrating me but I don't understand. I wish that you would instead consider my statements. You've drawn lines around the posts of other editors who clearly did not agree with you that the issue had been resolved. Otherwise the conversation would have ended or gone inactive. Your opinion that the discussion is pointless is evidently not shared by those editors whom you've enclosed in your lines. After Carolmooredc's apology she immediately went back to her disruptive editing and harassment. Steeletrap noted this within a couple of posts and withdrew his conciliatory statement. Have you read the entire thread of the ANI? There are serious issues being raised and discussed there. Only yesterday Carolmooredc was involved in an incident which user Steeletrap and user Stalwart reference on the ANI. Please reconsider my 2 messages here and please remove your lines. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

While irritated and frustrated, I am not angry. I do see that you post criticisms (of me) here and there that don't amount to anything, and I wonder if you are seeking to find fault in everything I do. But I will explain my action. I added two lines to the thread. One immediately after the point where CMDC did her mea culpa/Steele said that it resolved the matter. At that point the discussion should have ended. But User:Zero0000 added something that was not about either CMDC or Steele. (I wish I had added {{resolved}} before Zero added the off-topic comment.) So the first line serves as a marking point for editors to look at and consider. The second line, below my comment, serves as similar marking point. That is, other editors can consider what has gone on before they continue the thread. In any event, they, and especially you, are free to do so. The lines do not indicate that I agreed or disagreed with any of the comments. Rather, I make it clear that sometimes these discussions go on for much too long – never reaching fruition. This is the case at present. No admin action is going to come about. And if no more comments are added in the next 36 hours, the ANI will archive automatically. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you're sounding a little paranoid or maybe just hurt. I hardly find fault in everything you do as you well know and you know that I've thanked you for several edits within the past day or two. However as I and diverse other editors including Carolmooredc have told you: You have a tendency to assume an authoritarian stance when, for whatever reason, you become upset. You hat things, you give gratuitous instructions to your peers on your interpretations of policy, you rearrange talk pages, you tell third parties to strike various comments that don't concern you, etc. etc. It's untoward, it's unwarranted, it's counterproductive and I sure wish you'd cut it out. As I told you, and you failed to acknowledge in your most recent post on the ANI: Carol did not keep her pledge of compromise which was accepted by Steeletrap and he repudiated his acceptance. If you'd reviewed the thread the first time I reminded you of this you would not have repeated your mis-statement of what happened above your line on the ANI. OP has now affirmed she does not feel the matter should be closed at this juncture For my own information I may ask a 4th opinion about this. Why not remove the line? I'll give you a nice barnstar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Paranoid? I spent 11 months in Iraq where people were trying to kill me. Hurt? Some of my friends and comrades died there and in Afghanistan. My gosh, I do stuff that you don't like and you point to CMDC for support. In fact, "admonitions" from CMDC have been infrequent and ill-founded. You accused me of authoritarianism (and more) at User_talk:Steeletrap#North_RFC after I made a series of polite requests to Steele about RfC management. (The push-back from Steele & you did not help the RfC.) Back to the psychological assessment you provide, I did not say you "find fault in everything" I do, only that you seem to be seeking to find fault in everything. When you do find something at fault, really at fault, let me know. Vague, unsupported accusations of "mis-quoting" or "mis-citing" policy (etc.) don't cut it. – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the guys who were shooting at you in Iraq. Thanks for proving my point. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

They weren't just shooting. Rocket & mortar attacks were frequent. My buddies died because of suicide bombers and roadside bombs. (And I spent a lot of time "outside the wire".) The death of my buddies is hurt. WP is entertainment. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Many return from war with physical and emotional scars. Just leave me out of it. You're among peers here and the authoritarian bluster is out of place. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

AN discussion on your close at Talk:Murray Rothbard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request Admin Closure of RfC erroneously closed by involved editor". Thank you. Monty<sub>845</sub> 16:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixing the Rothbard RfC problems

Hi. I have just learned here that you are allowed to reopen the Rothbard RfC, which now appears either to have been closed prematurely or which should be closed by an Admin so that future editors do not question its legitimacy. Could you reopen and either list it for Admin closure on AN or continue with the discussion of the outcome, whichever you're inclined to do? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Tammy Duckworth RfC

Hello. I think your closure of the RfC on Talk:Tammy Duckworth is premature, since consensus had not yet been formed. In fact, WP:RFC states that the discussion should last 30 days by default, and only one week has passed. What do you think? Edge3 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Five previous discussions! All with the same result. Nothing said can contravene policy, no matter what the consensus is. And WP:DOB policy is leave out the date of birth when the subject requests it. So I'm not going to reopen the discussion, but you can certainly challenge the closing by posting an ANI. See: WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. I will be very interested in the result. – S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I challenged the closing on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tammy_Duckworth_RfC. Cheers, Edge3 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I unclosed it because it was closed completely out of process and because I was completely uninvolved — I've never heard of the woman before — and afterward I decided to participate. You already showed your hopes by closing the RFC out of process. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If an RfC was underway discussing BLP, SOAP, NPA, POV, Primary sources, RS, non-RS, etc., I'd hope that you'd come down on the side of policy trumping consensus. And that is the question in the Duckworth matter – DOB policy (however unclear) vs. the rather trivial desire to include a month and day for her birthday. If the policy had read the other way -- that including DOB was proper, irrespective of the desire of the subject, I'd enforce the policy. But the policy does not say "People who are notable and for whom RS provides DOB do not have the right to ask for limitations on their personal data." No, the policy includes and protects everyone. – S. Rich (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As I observed before, we have a core policy saying that we don't censor information; the concept that BLP is somehow a trump card over other policies is deeply troubling, as is your concept that consensus can be stifled by a passing admin to the point that we don't even pretend that other policies are relevant. Consensus, not stifling by passing admins, is the basis of collaborative editing, and encyclopedia-building, not bureaucracy, has always been the most basic purpose of the wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If censorship is the overriding policy, then what is the justification for WP:DOB? Is there justification in this case to WP:IAR? What does an admin do when a contributor wants to IAR? I'd think going back through the DOB archives and examining the debates would be the better course of action. (At the moment I'm looking at the archives with that in mind. So far no worthwhile results.) Doesn't WP:CONEXCEPT (which I am not well-versed on) say that consensus will not trump policy? I'm not asking that an admin stifle productive discussion, but this matter was round six in an ongoing drama. (Thanks for your insightful comments. I'm learning much.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Godhra Train Burning

Hello! I see that you removed my request for a dispute resolution on the Godhra Train Burning topic. The User:Darkness_Shines has removed my edit even though I have provided him with a justification. The disagreement is about an opinion being stated as a fact. The book that is being referred for the content "although the actual causes of the fire have yet to be proven conclusively" was written prior to the court ruling that conclusively proves that it was a crime. Kindly let me know how do I resolve this dispute. Thanks. Amol863 (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Doc Block

We are just relying on Inside Higher Education for a reprint of a letter (from Loyola econ dept to Doc. Block). I've now added a primary source (from Block) which shows that the reprint is accurate. Problem solved, I'm guessing? Steeletrap (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

BRD again

Srich, you've again gone against the spirit of BRD. The Spanish IP inserted Hulsmann, then I reverted it. Next step hadn't we better discuss it rather than you dismissively reinserting it. It's really not advancing the article to do so without discussion. Your reasoning is false but there's little point discussing these things with you if you take the attitude that you will re-insert your preferred version without going to talk. Please undo your re-insertion of Hulsmann and let's use talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 23:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary cited "non-notable" as the rationale for removal. It did not cite IP insertion. Even if it did, notability is not a criteria for removal of sourced material. – S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, you're repeating that you disagree with me. No problem to disagree, but be collegial follow BRD, and take it to talk. If you do so we will discuss why Hulsmann's opinion is not worth mentioning this way. The point is, you are not the magistrate here. Once an editor has reverted, use talk to get the reverting editor's thoughts. If edit summary comments were enough space to give a complete rationale behind the edit, we wouldn't have talk pages. Really, I know you are well-intentioned but many diverse editors have given you this same feedback. Please undo and come to talk. Also, incidentally I'm not sure the German wikilink is de rigeur. SPECIFICO talk 00:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

By IP insertion, you must be referring to [11], 4-5 days ago. Interestingly you edited that same insertion here: [12]. My reasoning is not false – rather, your stated edit summary rationale ("non-notable person") for the removal has no WP guidance supporting it. So what should we talk about? The original IP insertion, your edit on it, your ES, the fact that you did not initiate discussion after you reverted the IP edit (not that doing so is required), or the fact that what's-his-name has an article in the German WP (which indicates notability over there)? – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are way off base. You are worried that "your" version won't be sitting on the page while we have a collaborative discussion. There is abundant policy and guidance on WP that you should not be thinking that way. Your attitude above, basically that you already know that neither I nor any other editor will have any worthwhile objection to your preferred version, is entirely against the spirit of WP and the stated process which allows collaborators to improve it. Your choice. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please spare me from the pop psychology, etc. "Your" version is now the current one [13]. – S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, you are the top editor on Huerta with 117 out of the 418 edits total. I am #2 with 78, CMCD has 74, and poor Steele comes in at #5 with 8. The cumulative count took a sharp rise starting in June. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? The guidance on edit warring warns not to be concerned about "your" version of the disputed text, not the article as a whole. So please undo your re-insertion of your preferred text and don't worry that "your" version of the disputed Hulsmann bit won't be the one in place while the Hulsmann question is discussed on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, you can initiate discussion on the talk page yourself. Say something like this: "I think the contribution of the Hulsmann piece by the IP was not relevant, significant, or neutral." Ask for support to remove it, and justify your request via WP:BURDEN. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't need permission to undo it. I did not choose that route because I am trying to make it clear I will not follow your example of using reverts to express frustration or disdain for another editor's view. SPECIFICO talk 02:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course you don't need my "permission". That's why I used the "Suggestion" edit summary. And I certainly won't comment about what you are trying to express. I have no idea whatsoever in that regard. – S. Rich (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Changing Manning to Bradley

Hello Srich32977,

I sincerely hope that you and I – and all of the souls that we care about (human and now) – that we are all right now and that for the rest of our lives, we will all experience having long, healthy, happy, compassion-filled lives; and, that you will decide to come to my 130 birthday party on January 1, 2075!

I am feeling extremely embarrassed and ignorant right now because I just now realized that I have wasted some of your very valuable time when I erroneously changed "Manning" to "Bradley". Thankfully you were being very vigilant and you caught my error!

You are correct and I was incorrect! When we name a person in an article here in the USA: First we start by giving their full name as the writer of the Wikipedia article on Bradley Mannning did; and then thereafter, in that same article, they correctly used Bradley's surname, Manning.

However, I still believe that incorporating some of the other small changes that I suggested in the Manning article would have enhanced the clarity of the article.

Richard Jay Morris (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I've been wrong myself – too many times I'm afraid. Don't let this get under your skin. – S. Rich (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC); User:SPECIFICO, is there any commentary you'd like to add? – S. Rich (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

AutoEd problem?

Hi Srich. I noticed that your edit (diff) to dark matter did something very strange to some of the references. It duplicated last names, and matched some last names with the wrong initials. If you're regularly using this AutoEd tool, perhaps you could look into why this happened, whether it's a bug in the tool, and whether it's happening to other articles? Thanks. --Amble (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My experience with AutoEd has been pretty good. Especially where it gives us the multirefs. I'll keep a sharper eye on such results. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I suspect what's confusing it is the way the authors are given as last1, first1, last2, ..., last4="et al." There's no first name for the last "et al." author. The AutoEd developers could probably make a small change to catch this and not make the change; in principle there are various reasons why an author might have a "last" entry with no corresponding "first." --Amble (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

In the alternative, the original poster of the citation could have done a cut & paste of the entire listing and added it to "co-authors=". – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on empiricism

Please do not think I am saying that all meaningful statements have to be empirically testable. Philosophers, mathematicians, and logicians (three fields that have massive overlap) can derive universal, necessary (and therefore in some respect extra-empirical or metaphysical) truths such as A=A, 1+1=2, and so forth. I am however saying that all meaningful scientific (i.e. physics/biology/chemistry, as well as social science) statements have to be empirically testable. And I am also (with, per Hoppe, mainstream economics/philosophy thinkers) of the view that it's dogmatic nonsense to place economic truths as necessary logical truths, thereby making the law of diminishing returns more "basic" and "foundational" than the (empirically tested) laws of physics. Steeletrap (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment on BLP Thread

Your response to Bink appears to endorse his personal disparagement of me and Steeletrap. It also suggests that many editors are responsible for the confused, ad hominem, and inappropriate tone and content of the thread when, as you initially tagged, it was OP who launched it on the wrong path and who refused numerous requests to set it straight. Frankly, I don't know whether you intended those implications in your text but I hope you'll have a look and either clarify or remove them. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

fringe page

I encourage you to re-read the full section of WP:Fringe and revert your latest change (which added word "mainstream" to the description of the scholarship needed for a scholarly/methodology to be considered mainstream/non-fringe). My one-word edit was not an addition to policy; it was a clarification that enabled the header to match the body of the text, which specifically and repeatedly describes diversion from mainstream scholarships and publications as the criterion for being fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:COPYEDIT describes what "ce" actually is. I assume your change was meant for the best, but a change beyond mere ce "needs to be resolved with the input of multiple uninvolved users." In the nutshell edit, your addition of "mainstream" was unneeded because it is redundant. E.g., scholarship that is broadly supported is, by definition, mainstream. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about your response to my edit

S. Rich -- i see that my edits have themselves been edited. I am not sure I understand why there was a deletion of the references in Deuteronomy to the King's obligation to write out the law, or the explicit mandate that he follow it (Deut. 17:18-19). In addition, I can't see why it should be necessary to point out that a scholar believes these principles were utopian and were never implemented. I don't think there's any evidence that Aristotle's principles, which you also cite, or Plato's, were ever implemented either -- why say it as to the bible but not those sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar5542 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but take a look at the next edit. Another editor came in and added information sourced from a WP:SECONDARY source, e.g., not based on our own research. That was a proper edit. Just because we see material in one article or one section that is improperly sourced, we do not have an excuse to add our own material. Is this clear or helpful? If not, please let me know. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Rich. As you see I'm new to this. My intent was simply to add a reference to, and description of, the statements in Deuteronomy. The entry on Rule of Law is attempting to provide a comprehensive statement of sources for the doctrine as it is now, which is why it begins with antiquity; my purpose was to add to that by bringing in a discussion that clearly forms one of the bases for the concept at least in the Western world -- the bible. You've educated me on why it was inapprorpiate for me to reference, and purport to summarize, the Talmud's discussion of the topic. But I'm left with two questions: first, chapter 17 of Deuteronomy, in the verses I referenced, does a lot more with the rule of law than say the king can't have too many women or horses, or too much money: it makes an explicit directive about the king's copying, having, and obeying the Law. I referenced that. It is really the heart of the bible's statement on exactly this topic -- the rule of law. It should be in there. Second, the reference to Professor Levinson's article seems sort of gratuitously negative: Plato's philosopher king is clearly utopian, and Aristotle's statement of how he thinks things ought to work has not, to my mind, ever been implemented either. If one isn't going to say that they're pie in the sky, why say it about the bible? by the way, my intent in saying I'd made a small correction was only with respect to the earlier paragraph, which simply referred to what I'd added in the paragraph on antiquity. If I wasn't clear about that, and it wound up saying that my addition to the Antiquity section was minor, that was my mistake.Scholar5542 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes are quite alright. Wikipedia cannot be broken. As for editing decisions, sooner or later someone will come along and correct guideline type mistakes. We put articles on our watchlists and look for changes. That is why I saw your change, and corrected it. Also, I've provided guidance on proper editing (which goes beyond the mere technical aspects of adding material). Regarding Levinson, you may not agree with his material, but you do not have the right to add your own, personal thoughts. One: you may make sure that Levinson is paraphrased or quoted correctly, but do so in a WP:NPOV manner. Two: you may look for and post material from other scholars who have a different spin on D-17. We strive for WP:BALANCE. To help you out there are all sorts of essays on editing WP. Look at the bottom of WP:WPESSAY for a navagation box that provides lots of links. – S. Rich (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard and Barnes

Hello Rich. I agree with your removal of text added by Carolmooredc about whom Barnes inspired. But don't you think that a description of who Barnes was/what characterized his work is on-topic and should be added? Steeletrap (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who added what about Barnes. The removal was based on the off-topic nature of the phrase. The description of Barnes, who was a well respected Columbia U scholar, is available in his article. Best to omit any further description, other than to perhaps say "Columbia U professor". – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"who was a well-respected Columbia U scholar" "was" is the operative word there, Rich. Rothbard noted the ostracism and dislike accorded Barnes in academia for his WWII "revisionism." His Wikipedia entry (which I haven't edited at all) details the "why" behind his fall from grace.Steeletrap (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

From Barnes's Wikipedia entry: "Using [Holocaust Denier -- Steele] Rassinier as his source, Barnes claimed that Germany was the victim of aggression in both 1914 and 1939, an the Holocaust was just propaganda to justify a war of aggression against Germany in the latter case.[26] Barnes took the view that World War II had ended in disaster for the West with Germany divided and the United States locked into the Cold War, made the all worse in Barnes's eyes, as in his view Germany never wanted war.[27] Barnes claimed that in order to justify the "horrors and evils of the Second World War", required that the Allies make the Nazis the "scapegoat" for their own misdeeds."[27]

The wiki entry also notes how the post-war Barnes could not get his work published by any reputable academic (or popular) publisher, and had to resort to self-publishing.

I ask, again: Do you think, given Rothbard's effusive praise for Barnes "World War II revisionism", that a brief note on what that revisionism actually consisted of (Holocaust Denial and support for Nazi foreign policies) is worth adding? Note again that I agree with (and actually have for weeks pushed for on the talk page of the article) the deletion of the OT stuff about whom Barnes inspired. Steeletrap (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion about Riccardo Giacconi

Hallo Srich</ref> and thanks for your help! As you noticed, the other editor at Riccardo Giacconi's article disappeared again after initiating an edit war. I am nonetheless interested in your opinion about the usage of the WP:OPENPARA guideline, in this case and in general. Would be possible to get it, although I am alone and - if not - where should I post my question? I already asked to an admin but he got a burnout because of it... :-) Thanks in advance, Alex2006 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You Removed my Wiki Comment on Challange Coins

I would like you to pout it back or explain why I did not properly provide a source - there are several sources on this. But they tend to be in the Closed Special Forces Community. Being a Member of Special Forces myself. I lived and experianced what I am talking about.

A bit of history - nobody I ever met, ever saw any kind of a challenge coin, from any unit at all, anywhere, until the early 70's. I saw my first one in January of 1972 - it was from the 10th SFG. We all carried them - we got them from the Seargent Major and paid him $5 each for them. We would give them to close friends and other military folks, especally from foreigh special ops types. I never saw any other type of challenge coin until the early 80's. Rangers got them, and pretty soon the 82nd and 101st Abn got them. By the 90's they were everywhere.

What surprised me was that the current article on these coins completely overlooks the true orginal source of the modern day coin. I put it in - you took it out.

What I posted and what you removed was true and factual. Trouble is - the sources for this tends to copy other sources. I haave a picture of my coin - which I have been carrying for nearly 40 years if you wouuld like to see it.

But the sources I can find are these: http://www.sfalx.com/h_coin_rules_and_history.htm http://www.chinapost1.org/file/news/CoinHistory.htm http://www.cyclonecoins.com/history.htm

Please contact me direct if you like - I can send you a picture of my coin - My email address is b.mitchell@womack-machine.com

Bob Mitchell CW2 (Ret) US Army Special Forces — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerdad10 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bob, I've got my own history with SF and in SOF. (All favorable.) The real Wikipedia question for us is verifiability. We need and require published reliable sources to do that. Cyclonecoins won't qualify because they sell coins. Chinapost1 doesn't work either because it is simply one Legion Post's webpage. sfalx has some promise, but it is basically a WP:SPS resource and not helpful. Exactly where did these folks get their info? If we knew that, we could use that material. But here is a suggestion – take a look at the info about this book: OCLC 773696429. This shows there are regularly published books about challenge coins. Is this book about military challenge coins? I don't know. But such a book for US/military challenge coins would be a great Wikipedia reference. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

This is all very perplexing - I may need to write my own book and be my own source on this - since I was a part of this. The book you mentioned made no sense to me. I am a member of the Special Forces Association and they publish a mag called The Drop - I don't know if they have anything in their archives about the early coins. But if they did - would you buy off on that? Failing that - I don't know - It's common knowledge among the old SF guys - but these days, probably the new guys don't even know the history. That is why I wante to put that paragrah in there. ~~Tigerdad10~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerdad10 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The problem, Bob, is that Wikipedia doesn't do "common knowledge among the old guys". We are looking for the kind of verifiable published information that you would use if you were writing a paper for a cranky and skeptical professor. Self-published books and the like don't cut it; single-purpose sources don't cut it; websites that don't exercise editorial control over content don't cut it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It may take a while - but I will be back with a source. Obviously, Wikipedia reality has nothing to do with first hand observations. But one more thing, just for the sake of argument relating to these coins: I've read many books on WW2, not so many on WW1, but a few - just a couple on Korea. Seen, lots and lots of Hollywood movies on those wars - and never, ever in any of these encounters with books or movies do I remember any talk of Coins. This is a modern Military Development that had its roots in the late-late 60’s. Starting in Special Forces, and in particular, the 10th Special Forces. This is not a “War Story.” What it is, is an attempt to provide insight as to the origin of a phenomena that has leaped out of a single source and overtaken virtually every military unit in the known universe. In fact it has moved on to paramilitary units like the local police and fire departments – I am sure that it won’t be long that the USPS will have Coins too. But like I said – there is a single source – and it was not some obscure WW1 pilot behind enemy lines or whatever that was about. Tigerdad10 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Tigerdad10

Bob, I mentioned the book just to show there are published works out there on the subject. But here is another one: OCLC 855425257. This article from Fire Chief (magazine) says challenge coins go back to WWI. I understand your desire to expand Wikipedia – and I wish I could put in my own war stories about different topics. (I bet my "Old Guy" years go back further than yours!) And thanks, Mike, for your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Try this source: It is a partial explination of what I'm talking about - scroll downt to the pictue of the coin and read the caption. http://www.groups.sfahq.com/10th/history.htm Tigerdad10 (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Tigerdad10

The sfahq.com site might work as RS. If you'd like to give it a try, go ahead. (You can draft it and post it here if you like.) Regarding Wikipedia "reality", keep in mind the SOF Imperatives. – S. Rich (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok - Here it is agaiin: ……….the soldier was their valid contact for the mission against the Japanese. <<Insert after above Paragraph>>

In the years following World War II, Group Coins, as they were known, became a tradition with the US Army Special Forces. Nearly every Special Forces unit has minted its own version of the Group coin; however, the 10th Special Forces Group can be credited with fostering the tradition for a Group coin. In July 1969, Colonel Vernon E. Green, Group commander, designed and had manufactured the 10th Group coin. On the obverse, or front, is the inscription: "10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) 1st Special Forces." In the center of the coin is the Trojan Horse crest, the original SF crest worn during the 1950s, and below, the words "Trojan Horse." The reverse side is inscribed with the Special Forces motto "De Oppresso Liber" and "The Best." A beret with flash is centered over a scroll for engraving the owner's name or job specialty, e.g., team sergeant, or light weapons leader. Nearly all Group coins have a scroll or such place for engraving. Once the 10th Group coin was minted, the tradition began, calling for each Group member, past and present, to procure and carry a coin at all times. In addition to active or former Group personnel owning coins, they have been presented to friends and foreign Special Forces soldiers at the close of joint country training, as mementoes.

<<Insert prior to below Paragraph>> The challenge coin tradition has spread to other military units, in all branches of service, and even to non-military organizations as well as ……..

This Above is not all from the SFAHQ site - but I have found another from the US Army Rangers that has it verbatum. It also jives with what I remember. http://www.airborne-ranger.com/ranger/index.html You may have to go to the side bar and click on "Coin Check" Tigerdad10 (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Tigerdad10

Bob, it looks like you are learning the Wikipedia Operational Environment! A couple of problems: 1. airborne-ranger.com is WP:SPS – a no-go. 2. I'm looking for WP:V in the sfahq site, that confirms the various details of what you've written, but can't find it. 3. The writing in WP has got to be WP:TERSE, so details need to be pertinent. 4. Words like "However" have an editorial ring to them. That is, we've got one fact ("each Group has their own coin") plus another fact ("10th SFG made the first coin") – but it's not our job to put them together with our own "however-type" analysis. If we have one fact ("10th SFG produced their coins in 1969"), a second fact can follow it ("today all SFGs have coins"). For each of these facts we need and want a citation. – S. Rich (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rich I am tempted to say Screw It I’m being kind. The Paragraph I offered is dead-on accurate - from personal knowledge, common sense, and many sources that, unfortunately don't pass the Wiki test. Back in the 70's, I used to pull Staff Duty up at the 10th Group HQ at Fort Devens. In the center of the bull pen up stairs, there was a large wooden statue of a Green Beret Trooper - There was a book there near it that had History and Traditions of the 10th SFG - among them was the "Rules of the Coin," These rules were prefaced by a brief history, that is mentioned in my Paragraph. I suppose that book may still be in existence, don't know - I retired in 1987 and they moved the 10th to Fort Carson a few years after that - so if the book does exist - that is where it is. Additionally, New Officers coming into the Group were given an excerpt of the Rules. I got one of those once too, but have no idea where it is. On another point - I noticed that this Wiki article has a huge amount of what I think is BS about the WW1 soldier - this is all prefaced with a statement: "There are several stories detailing the origins of the challenge coin." What I have been offering is a clear FACT that is not a story. What I find disappointing is that I have found another SF website that actually includes that WW1 story too - Not sure if they got it from Wikipedia or vice versa. Here is that link. http://www.sfalx.com/h_coin_rules_and_history.htm I have also found the name of the Author of the exact paragraph (minus the first sentence that I wrote). At the end of the document - it says this: Adapted from an article by Lyle Hunger, U. S. Army Special Forces I don't know him and do not know if he is alive or not - but I can find out. By the way, what I find amusing is if the local paper had interviewed me for some reason and asked me about challenge coins and then written an article about what I said - and then it was published, then - that source would withstand the tests apparently. Tigerdad10 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Tigerdad10

If we can find the Lyle Hunger article, that would be great. At that point we evaluate him as WP:RS. It all comes down to verification, not truth. (And your complaint about using the truth is a common one.) That is part of the ROE for WP. Also consider the long-term effects of what you'd like to do. We can't have articles that say "According to the recollections of CWO TigerDad, USA (ret), .......XYZ" Nope. It won't work. Wikipedia already has enough non-sourced and poorly sourced material, and I'm spending some of my retirement working on cleaning up that material. And my insistence that we get RS for the coin material is simply an effort to ensure the legitimacy and credibility of Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Understand! Tigerdad10 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Tigerdad10

Thanks, Chief. Ping me whenever you wish. (And take a look at this story: [14].) – S. Rich (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Just updating - sent out a blanket message to my SF buds yesterday - got reponses from 42 of them. First thing I learned is that Col Vernon Green, was mentioned by several as being the insperation and founder of the first SF coin - also learned that he died in 1995. I asked all these guys when and where they first heard of the coin, where and how they got one themselves. With 42 responses, thus far, only two mentioned they got them in 1969 - none prior to that year, all the rest were later. Five guys said their first coin was from the Rangers, mid 80's. No one siad they remember coins prior to the SF coin and none prior to 1969. I have asked for the wherabouts of Lyle Hunger - who wrote the article I am seeking - but thus far, no one remembers him. So I'm still looking for that. Tigerdad10 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Tigerdad10