User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 181

Archive 175

←

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

→

Archive 185

To show, or not to show?

Hi Jimbo,

As for other wikis, we have a policy in Persian Wikipedia to bring the featured articles to the Main Page and show each article for a week. Selection of an FA to be shown is on a first come first shown basis. So far, we have shown more 100 FAs on the Main Page. However, there are two or three FAs that haven't yet hit the main page due to their "sensitive" contents. For example, Homosexuality is an FA in our wiki, but has never been taken to the first page. While we are not experiencing any major homophobic opposition in our community, the main reason for that article to have remained off-the-list has been due to the fear from Iranian government's action against Persian Wikipedia or strong reaction from hardliners that could potentially affect the availability of encyclopedia's contents in Iran.

There's been an unwritten agreement among active users and sysops not to show those specific articles on the most watched page. The problem, however, is that we have strict guidelines against censorship set by the Wikimedia Foundation. Once any user provokes the discussion of bringing those articles to the main page, no policy (even local) can prevent that user from doing it. This becomes even more sensitive when a second FA article about a Bábí figure is considered. From minority rights point of view, believers in Bábism have the very right to object to a form of censorship on one of their respected figures; but from another point of view, showing that article on the first page of Persian Wikipedia will not only make headlines in Iran, but would also result in sever state pressures on known editors inside the country.

As someone who has been in charge of selecting the FA article to be shown every week, I always had questions in mind regarding this issue. However, I thought that recent debates about boundaries of freedom and censorship have provided a good ground to solve this local issue once and for all. I appreciate if you could provide foundation's viewpoint on this matter. Thanks. -- Nojan (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I fear that my advice will be at the level of principles rather than at the level of specific advice, and this means that it will contain matters to think about but no firm answers.

As people who have talked to me about this over the years will know, I think that WP:NOTCENSORED is an important policy but one which is often incorrectly cited. Saying that we are not censored does not mean that we must abandon wisdom and editorial judgment in line with best serving our readers. And often, posting something astonishing on the front page is mere juvenile provocation rather than a genuine act of editorial boldness. In the past here in English Wikipedia, we have had Gropecunt Lane and just this past December, during the family holiday season, we had Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. I think those were both mistakes because they were provocative without any real purpose. In predominantly English speaking countries, there is no particular taboo and especially no legal restriction on using such words - it's just surprising for an encyclopedia and offensive for some people. I don't see any blow for freedom in doing things like that - it just makes us look like a bunch of rebels in favor of... nothing all that important.

Your case, though, is different. Homosexuality is an important topic, and that you have a high quality FA status article on the topic in a language where the topic is culturally and legally quite difficult and sensitive is, in my view, heroic. When I search for 'همجنس‌گرایی' in Google.com (I don't find google.ir) I see that our article is the first one. If a young person in Iran is having personal questions about their own sexuality, or simply desires more information on the topic, then I hope this article is neutral, calm, informative, and helpful. I can't read Farsi, but I am confident that it is.

So this isn't like some of the silly debates we have here in English about offense. The stakes are high on both sides. If you push it to the front page and cause headlines, you possibly end up making this valuable information less accessible. If you don't push it to the front page out of fear of that, you fail to help slowly adjust attitudes about the importance of factual information even on topics that some people in a culture find upsetting.

As I think this through, here is a comparison that may be helpful. Suppose there is a burning building and people trapped inside. You are on the street. If you make the calculated choice that you have the ability to help and if, at some serious risk to yourself, you choose to attempt a rescue, then you are heroic. But if you make the calculated choice that it is too risky, that you'd likely not be able to help, and that you'd only be risking your own life with little chance of helping with the crisis, then that's ok too. No one can really stand in judgment in such a balanced and complex case depending so much on a difficult judgment call made with no firm information as to what will happen next.

Similarly, if you decided to run that article on the front page, I'll fully support you. It's an important topic and if it upsets some people, so be it. Hopefully we won't get banned. It's a calculated risk. No one knows the outcome. But if you decide that, actually, people who need the article can already find it quite easily, and the provocation is not likely to bring about any positive benefit, then I think that's ok too.

I don't know enough about Bábism to have a strong opinion on that one, but at first thought it seems much less fundamental than a broad article on homosexuality. Local facts might convince me otherwise, but that one sounds much less important. Risking banning over that would seem to me to be much less worthwhile. Blows for freedom should be powerful and meaningful.

Now, one last point. I think it is absolutely right that no rule or policy should prevent someone from nominating those articles or provoking a discussion about it. If we put into place rules that prevent thoughtful dialog on some issue, we are very likely to end up making very poor decisions. This is a case where I would say citing WP:NOTCENSORED is valid. But once that nomination is made, I don't think that WP:NOTCENSORED is a very meaningful way to think about the question. The question is one of editorial judgment and long term strategy.

I hope that this has been in some way helpful!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of the reported reaction of David Cameron to the Charlie Hebdo shootings: a friend told me he had advocated every newspaper in Britain carrying the cartoons. Populist, yes, and certainly a valid expression of the moral outrage we all felt, but how helpful was it in achieving the goal of undermining religious bigotry? Tact can be a powerful weapon. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response Jimbo. In case of Bábism, since the Persian wiki is already under attack from hardliners in Iran, claiming that the online encyclopedia is run by anti-Islam activists, having it on the front page makes a political problem with the Islamic regime. In the case of Homosexuality, however, it's a social topic that may infuriate government officials, but as you mentioned, has positive impacts on many social levels. Now as for the general case, what if after taking Homosexuality to the front page, people ask for Bábism issue to be of no exception? Also, as a sysop in that wiki, can I feel supported by the authorities bestowed upon me to prevent other sysops from trying to bring down the article in case of a subsequent dispute? This is due to the previously mentioned "unwritten agreement" among sysops that by not showing those articles on the main page, we are protecting the system from hardliner attacks. -- Nojan (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it best if the community acts with clear consensus. I would never recommend to anyone that they individually try to "prevent other sysops"... sounds like a sure recipe for an internal conflict with sad results all around. At the same time, I think there is a bigger issue to think about if the community would vote to have something on the home page, but the admins would (collectively) decide to defy the will of the community. In a case like that, I think there is no simple answer: maybe the broader community is right, maybe the sysops are right. But if there is a strong division between the broad community and the sysops - something has gone wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting that not being censored means that we CAN run such things on our front page, not that we MUST. The ability to choose when to be sensitive to the reactions of people coming to our page is a privilege that we get from that lack of censorship. That said, I don't think homosexuality should remotely be a problem and I'm kinda shocked that it didn't make it to the front page, given that it reached FA status. Honestly - would anyone truly believe that we don't have such an article? The hypothetical "young person in Iran" who needs information on that subject can simply type the word into the search box to find it - and promoting the article on the front page won't make the slightest bit of difference to that kind of person. It's not our policy to selectively pick articles for the FA slot on the basis of importance. SteveBaker (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for free speech, even the articles that Jimbo calls "mistakes". But-- free speech also means that the Persian Wikipedia gets to make its own decisions. If I were a contributor there, I would argue to include this as free speech; but if I were a contributor there, my participation would help keep the site going were it suddenly to be blocked out in some other countries. But I'm not a contributor there, so I don't get a vote, and the votes go to those who actually are keeping it going. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) je suis Charlie je suis Dieudonné

How new editors are treated on wikipedia

Please see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 62#Speedy deletion of Adam (band)

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 750editsstrong (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been reverting this users blatant forum shopping/spamming of this discussion. I'll leave this one as I know Jimbo likes his open door policy but this is heading towards WP:POINT territory. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:, please see the most recent edits by the editor. Maybe WP:ANI is the place to discuss this? John Carter (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I was discussing his most recent edits, the ones I have been reverting and that he is now warning me over. It may indeed become an administrative matter soon enough if he doesn't cut it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns Beeblebrox. I won't alert anyone more on wikipedia to bringing up topics you disagree with. I think my comment here falls under Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. Please let me know if that is not the case. Thanks. 750editsstrong (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Degenerating rapidly and I don't want to have to block this talk page owner or any other participants. Jehochman ^Talk 22:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Have you anything to do with the global banning and locking of Russavia? KonveyorBelt 19:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I have nothing to do with it. I wish I did as it was richly deserved and long overdue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, if i may ask, could you explain why it was "Deserved"? Lor^Talk 11:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The sockpuppeting alone is enough. We don't even have to get into his extensive abuse of other users, but that alone, too, would be enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So I would know a dozen more Users who have to be banned this way alone at de:WP. But the WMF only banns people, the WMF don't like. and ofcourse we know, why Russavia was banned. Mr Wales was not amused about the Pricasso image. And so Russavia has to go. Thanks to the board, that normaly don't decide anything - but for the Lex Jimbo the Board came to a result. It is a shame. Russavia made more for the Wikimedia projects than Mr Wales and all oh his friends of Board and Foundation together. But you all think, you can treat us this way. We are only Numbers. We have to learn, it is your project. Not ours. Thanks for that! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see this in the Meta:Terms of Use. There is a provision against "Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive", but I don't think this should apply to the common case of multiple account use or block evasion. It's just too commonplace. And even the new Meta:WMF Global Ban Policy reads like it is meant to be applied only to people who have caused problems on multiple projects, because sometimes there is simply an overall difference in culture on some issue that causes a person who holds the highest rank on one to end up getting called out on the carpet on another. To me this use of the policy seems like a very bad idea indeed, because without explanation good contributors are plucked out of a project without its consent, which has already had a damaging effect on morale. A lot of people are taking a lot of time to figure out things like when some 19th-century photographer died or whether there is freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan, and I do not want to see such this resource degraded. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is just wrong. First Dcoetzee, then Russavia ... these are top-notch contributors. What possible justification can there be to ban their efforts? In any case the Commons community deserves an explanation. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, there was one recent controversy where Russavia advocated to keep a commons image that satirized Santa Claus and Jimbo Wales for saying 'Santa wasn't real' in the Wikiepdia article. Though that probably wouldn't push him over the edge, it could be a factor. Nonetheless, if WMF wants to consider itself a 'transparent' organization, it needs to give reasoning for its global bans. This just reeks of possibility (or even actuality) of abuse. Banning somebody from all projects, and not having to explain why? You might as well just kill Wikipedia, as it runs completely contrary to its nature. Free, open, anybody can edit. Tutelary (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't Russavia's user page provide an email address to contact with any questions? His user page also indicates extensive sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

To those asking for greater transparency, I understand. I'm going to copy here something that I said on meta, at the WMFOffice account talk page:

Russavia knows by whom he was globally banned, but I'll say it here as well. I signed the letter myself. In all things, the WMF tries very hard to be as open and transparent as possible. But there are times when - for the safety of users of this site - we simply must draw the line and ask that you either trust us or don't. This is one of those times. There is appropriate supervision to be sure that global bans do not get abused, and we have an extremely high standard that must be met before we authorize one. We ensure appropriate checks and balances - no one person can authorize a global ban, and there must be an okay from the legal team. My view is that it should be a tool that's used very rarely and with a great deal of care. But yes, to protect the safety and integrity of our site and its users, we will occasionally be forced to use it. And in those times, we will not talk about why. It's the only responsible way to handle this.

Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action.

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So there is a secretive cabal running Wikipedia, thanks for confirmation. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to the WMF for taking this action. This has been a long time coming, and should contribute to cleaning up Commons. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Despite my personal distaste for Russavia — which is considerable — I believe that his ban sets a very dangerous precedent. There is no "child protection" or "community danger" rationale possible here; this is a plain-and-simple WMF ban of a user who they happen to find distasteful or abrasive or inconvenient. WMF puts forward only a "trust us — we're professionals and it takes more than one person to execute one of these nukings and no further comments" rationale. Sorry, guys, that political capital has already long been spent during the SuperProtection controversy and the endless bad software initiatives... We don't need or want WMF obliterating their enemies (no matter how obnoxious) where there is no clear and present physical danger presented by these individuals. Policing these people away (or declining to police them away) is our job as a community, not yours as fundraisers, physical hardware managers, and legal defenders. I have no confidence here. Carrite (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "There is no "child protection" or "community danger" rationale possible here" {{citation needed}}. How do you know what evidence the WMF has seen? Anyway, the Terms of Use do not use either of those phrases so it is not necessary for those rationales to be present. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Carrite here, the Wikimedia Foundation are rapidly draining what little goodwill remains in many areas of the project, there is open distrust in some areas and the disastrous collapse in relations between Eric and the community in 2014 has apparently gone unnoticed by San Francisco. The WMF Global Ban policy, on its own, is not the worst thing the WMF has ever done, indeed, the rationale behind it is sensible and the need for such a policy very much real. The problems are the permanent nature of the ban and the inability to appeal those sanctions. We know most penal systems globally recognise behaviour can change, that attitudes change and that it's desirable to reintegrate 'offenders' back into the community, something both the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and now the Wikimedia Foundation are failing to do, in so many cases, leading to administrators, stewards and inevitably now the Legal and Community Advocacy team spending thousands of man hours every year chasing around after sock puppets that in many cases (though obviously not all) have ceased the behaviour for which the user responsible was originally banned.

I would ask that you, Jimmy, and the board consider modifications to the Global Ban policy, which permits, after a sensible amount of time, commensurate with the reasons for the Global Ban, a method of appealing the ban to either the board, or to Community Advocacy, broadly in line with the established procedures here on English Wikipedia - appeals after 1 or 2 years then either 6 or 12 monthly after that, appeals being heard would obviously be entirely dependent on the user meeting any requirements, such as not evading their Global Ban during the period it's in force. Nick (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would support something like that, even though in most cases it will be a complete waste of time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Some would say the ArbCom is a waste of time too as all it does is ban users..How many banned users has it re-rehabilitated and allowed back? Allowing a user no chance of returning but to give them a false hope that they could via ArbCom or the Standard offer is what probably leads to socking in the first place..--Stemoc 14:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• meta:Terms of Use section 4: "Harassing and Abusing Others". If this is severe and persistent, a user can be globally banned. Being a good writer of articles or creator of images does not excuse mistreatment of others. For what I've seen of the recent batch of global bans, they were all proper. The conspiracy theorizing is really boring. Please recognize that there have to be limits, and that once in a while somebody will cross them and get banned. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Good riddance, what took the WMF so long? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Philippe (WMF): While I appreciate your assurance that '"provoking Jimbo" is not on the list', it doesn't go far enough. I'm not sure if you recognize the usernames, but right now in the various talk pages you're getting claps on the back from most of the people who were pushing for Wikimedia Commons to be censored and/or abolished, and few others. There is a strong perception, at least on their side, that this action represents support for their political agenda of generally censoring things they don't like the look of. And their agenda is dangerous in a way that I very much doubt Russavia ever has been. Bear in mind, for example, that with strong community support, the Charlie Hebdo shootings article is illustrated with the precise comics that are the object of worldwide demonstrations, burning of churches in Niger, potential future al Qaida attacks that have global security forces on high alerts. Yet the same crew of people congratulating you now wanted the contribution of a recognized cartoonist deleted on Commons because they claimed that it was "harassment". Think about what that would have meant for the safety of Wikimedia employees and particularly of Jimbo Wales if the Hebdo article were illustrated but the Islamists had been given the impression that it is OK here to have cartoons of Muhammad but not of Jimbo! I know it seems really silly, and annoying, and some look down their noses on it as immature, but Commons may have dodged a literal bullet for you that day. So it is vital that if you had a real case against Russavia, you clarify that it is not based on a condemnation of his uploads of artistic works. Wnt (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a remarkably convoluted way of saying "the people who applaud the decision to ban Russavia are the same people who disliked Russavia harrassing people". Exactly what it has to do with Charlie Hebdo, I have no idea.... The Land (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This and this are both cartoons by professional artists. If we deleted the second as offensive, then did not delete the first, Islamists would say that we think Jimbo is holier than Muhammad. As for the people, I don't have the patience to try to track them all down from the many threads, but I think you'll find most of them calling for censorship or abolition of Commons frequently right here in the archives of this talk page, among other places. Wnt (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that by serving as judge, jury and executioner with no clarity on the process or the reason whatsoever, by enacting these bans the WMF is implicitly putting themselves and their agendas above those of the communities. Nbody but them will know exactly why the bans occurred, but there is a very good chance it was just to get a pesky user off of their case. This sets a bad example for the WMF and opens the door for many more future bans on abrasive or divisive personalities like our own [removed specific editor name (completely uninvolved in this conflict)]. KonveyorBelt 21:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

One can only hope that [removed specific editor name (completely uninvolved in this conflict)] is banned as quickly as humanly possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a word for people who try to drag someone they dislike into a conflict, hoping and praying he reacts "uncivilly". It starts with a "C", but I dare not say it, because on Wikipedia rudeness and sniping behind people's backs must be done using only a list of approved words. It must be galling that the editor in question hasn't said something sanctionable in a while, but a carefully chosen mention should do the trick, eh? I have never been more disappointed in your pompous hypocrisy than I am now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Banned for what Mr Wales? Eric Corbett 22:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And here once again we have a disruptive troll by Party A and the inevitable pointless response to provocation by Party B. And we can envision the possible endgame in play through use of this new Universal San Francisco Bannination Mechanism, can we not? Carrite (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to be specific about who you believe Parties A and B to be, because so far as I'm aware this spat has absolutely nothing to do with me. Eric Corbett 22:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unnecessary

Been there, done that... Carrite (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this was unnecessary and could have been like throwing gasoline on a recently put-out fire. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Trol lol lol... Just kidding. Thanks for founding Wikipedia! t 1234567890Number c 15:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandals on your userpage

I wonder: Why is 70-90% of your user page's edit history is vandalism and vandalism undos? Some things are for sure: 1. Your page is a vandal magnet. 2. Your page is a high traffic page. 3. Your page is a user magnet that attracts everybody. 4. No offense intended! ^t 1234567890Number ^c 15:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it is semi-protected. I like it to be quite open, and yes, it is a vandal magnet. And a hostile troll magnet. But I have a very calm personality so I don't really mind it much. But the problem with it not being at least semi-protected is that the noise ratio goes way up. I don't have a strong preference, but I do have a mild preference that it be semi-protected.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism to keep majorities from running amok?

I've noticed in some articles and entire topics, it is hard, even with our policies on NPOV, OR, and RS to have a fundamental NPOV regarding historical facts. Either you have the argument "those sources are not reliable because they are white people POV and 'outdated'" (which is a legitimate argument) or you have the flip-side "those are not reliable because they are propaganda from anti-Western sources trying to push a geopolitical agenda". I don't want us to get bogged down into specifics but you can find many in our history articles (eg- China and its relations towards Tibet when edited can cause an uproar; Israel/Palestine is another). When one group is a majority they often get upset about articles regarding the history of the people they "represent", it's human nature, and it can cause problems either in absolute numbers such as over 1 billion Chinese or in Wikipedia terms because that group happens to be over-represented on the internet (WASP men would be an example, maybe? I dont know, just guessing. I'm Jewish, perhaps we're they ones that are more than our .2% of the world population when it comes to editors on Wikipedia, we've never had a census). So, basically my question to Mr. Wales et al is this- do our policies really stand up to large majorities who wish to incorporate a POV from sources that want to rewrite history for geopolitical purposes? I ask this because history is written by the winners; China is just one example of a recent winner who, rightfully or wrongly, does now get to write history from its perspective, just as the "American Century" is full of history books written from their perspective and are still incorporated into Wikipedia (again, wrongly or rightly is debatable). As their secondary sources become more numerous, there are likely to be versions of history that may not be correct from a loser's perspective. Just looking for some philosophical perspectives on how Wikipedia is set up to handle this.Camelbinky (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the idea of many eyes/opinions on articles but, ultimately, is 'Wikipedia is set up to handle this'? My answer is no. AnonNep (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Another good example that Jimbo was also recently involved in the the Cultural Marxism spat, which I think was led by self-proclaimed Marxists and cultural Marxists -- who probably didn't believe in abolishing money like Marx did. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AnonNep. There is, though, a slight oddity wrt Indian/Pakistan/Bangladesh history articles, where many people get upset even though they are in the statistical majority. This may be the reverse of Camelbinky's experience as in those articles, aside from our policies not being favourable to oral history and ancient primary sources, the statistical majority fall foul of the policies when it comes to the geopolitical mess that was created by Raj ethnographers etc who slavishly accepted as truth what has often since been determined to be fantasy, wild speculation or boosterism/puffery. The rewriting of history in relation to those articles is generally regarded as having happened in the period roughly extending from 1820 to 1931, rather than in the present day. James Tod is a classic early example of it and this subject area might be the exception to the rule that Camelbinky raises. - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Most issues with systematic bias can be boiled down to editor demographics and the need to welcome new editors with more diverse backgrounds and POVs. CorporateM (Talk) 22:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably Jimbo is part of the problem. His claim to be an atheist and his tendency to break all of Wikipedia's policies in order to promote his views sets an appalling example to any editor who comes across his edits and free reign for those editors who either share his view or want to ingratiate themselves with Jimbo. Perhaps one of the most notable examples was the site banning of TimidGuy by Jimbo. TimidGuy was a long term victim of WillBeBack, an admin who was able to bully, stalk and out editors who didn't share his POV with impunity; despite numerous examples of POV editing, harassment, gaming the system, battleground conduct and appeals for help from numerous editors who suffered at his hands. Eventually it got too much for even ARB COM, who had a history of rubber stamping the numerous Arbitration requests brought by WillBeBack to harass and eliminate his victims and TimidGuy's ban was overturned and WillBeback desysopped and banned. Unfortunately ARB COM has done nothing since and numerous editors remain blocked and banned as a result of WillBeBack and ARB COM compliance whilst WillBeBack has been welcomed back to the fold and his editing rights returned. Wikipedia is indeed the encyclopedia any one can edit and that means minorities will always be marginalised and that is unlikely to change as long as Jimbo, ARB COM and admins think their views are more important than the truth.MOMENTO (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"His claim to be an atheist..."? Are you suggesting he isn't one? I've seen Jimbo accused of lots of things, but lying about non-belief is a new one. Why would he 'claim' it if it wasn't true? Not that it actually seems to have any bearing on the rest of your diatribe... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to derail this discussion, but I wanted to point out that atheism is not a "non-belief". Since the non-existence of God is unprovable, that means that atheism is a belief. It is a belief that God does not exist. That's why atheism should probably be categorized as a religion within WP, if it isn't already. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Kindly take your train-wreck logic elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Momento's version of those events is highly skewed, in my opinion. Who truly knows "the truth" and who adjudicated that? Yes, WillBeback made mistakes and was subjected to an exceptionally harsh penalty. He lost his administrative privileges. He is now free to edit again, but is not currently editing, as far as I know. I believe that a careful examination of the work he did will show that it was mostly positive, though he made errors in dealing with aggressive POV pushers. He paid his price. Let's move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If my version was just an opinion or even just slightly skewed it might be difficult for an inexperienced editor to show it. But since you say it is "highly skewed" it should be easy for a Senior editor like yourself to point out the flaws. I look forward to your corrections.MOMENTO (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was entertaining. Starting from an interesting concern about very large majorities and large ethnic or national groups of people, we have actually had an illustration of the problem that I think is more real: extreme minorities such as the followers of an Indian guru who has been called a "cult leader" manage to tediously battle to keep out negative information about their beloved guru. Or, as in the Cultural Marxism example, we reach what is an obviously wrong conclusion because again an extreme minority of people cares enough to "!vote" while most everyone else just ignores it. (And yes, I'm saying that the conclusion of the Cultural Marxism thing was clearly wrong, not NPOV, and in fact just wrong. If anyone wants to talk about that, we should discuss it in a separate thread.)

My point here is this: I'm intrigued in a philosophical way as to whether eventually English Wikipedia will tend to reflect an Indian perspective everywhere (if for example the rate of English usage in India doubles or triples from 10% of the population to 30%) and Indians become our largest number of participants. That's years away and it's an interesting and fun thing to contemplate.

But I think the problem we have much more often right now is situations in which only a tiny extreme minority cares enough about an issue to weigh in on it, while everyone else is worrying about more important things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And you've just summarized systemic bias in a large inhomogenous group. WP isn't a large blended group of dispassionate editors, it's a collection of many passionate groups. Any topic that has controversy has groups that attach themselves to it. Cultural marxism might be clear cut but others have only factions of strongly held POVs and size wins. The groups don't have to be along country or religious boundaries but can be any other unifying viewpoints. --DHeyward (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be a bit more optimistic, it's actually both - a large blended group of dispassionate editors *and* a collection of many passionate groups.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I think nearly all editors have a passion of some sort and are dispassionate about other topics. The difficulty arises in controversial topics where dispassionate is desired but the atmosphere leaves no one with the will or competence to continue unless they are passionate. There's no malice in passion but there is also no compromise. Arbcom exists because of this. But since content is not decided, only behavior, it's an intractable problem. I'd submit that this embraced/structured method of problem solving (small, passionate groupings in uncompromising battles) is the root of larger issues such as the gender gap and why that gap spans topics, countries, religion, etc. --DHeyward (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was entertaining.

You may find it entertaining, but I consider it heartbreaking to see Wikipedia turn against its core principles and degenerate from within.

Starting from an interesting concern about very large majorities and large ethnic or national groups of people, we have actually had an illustration of the problem that I think is more real: extreme minorities such as the followers of an Indian guru who has been called a "cult leader" manage to tediously battle to keep out negative information about their beloved guru.

I would caution all Wikipedians not to label individual editors as "extreme minorities" or "lunatic charlatans" unless one has good reason to do so.

Or, as in the Cultural Marxism example, we reach what is an obviously wrong conclusion because again an extreme minority of people cares enough to "!vote" while most everyone else just ignores it.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's the strength and quality of an argument that counts, not the number of votes.

I'm intrigued in a philosophical way as to whether eventually English Wikipedia will tend to reflect an Indian perspective everywhere (if for example the rate of English usage in India doubles or triples from 10% of the population to 30%) and Indians become our largest number of participants.

I understand that a particular minority ethnic group might eventually usurp the POV of the prevailing ethnic group, but our editing policies applies to all users regardless of nationality and I would welcome more diversity in our encyclopedia even if it upsets a number of editors from the prevailing ethnic group.

But I think the problem we have much more often right now is situations in which only a tiny extreme minority cares enough about an issue to weigh in on it, while everyone else is worrying about more important things.

I think the bigger problem is that the prevailing majority refuses to engage with the minority and, as a result, consensus discussions are often reduced into mere acts of votestacking in favor of the majority.

Well, to be a bit more optimistic, it's actually both - a large blended group of dispassionate editors *and* a collection of many passionate groups.

Unless one is absolutely sure that the passionate minority group is illegitimate, I would advise everyone to give the minority a chance by truly listening to them in order to reach a consensus rather than merely votestacking against them. Ad hominem arguments that attempt to portray the minority as "lunatic charlatans" and/or irrational followers of a cult leadership should obviously be avoided if WP:AGF still means anything on this site.

-A1candidate 18:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

JImbo has me at a disadvantage here because if I respond to his comment with facts I will be site banned from Wikipedia for ever, not just topic banned forever. But I can mention the two authoritative and respected scholars that Jimbo goes to when researching cults. One is Bob Larson, author of such learned tomes as "Rock & Roll: The Devil's Diversion", "UFO's and the Alien Agenda" and "In The Name of Satan: How the Forces of Evil Work and What You Can Do to Defeat Them". And Bob is not just an author, Bob is actually more famous for exorcising people over the radio but if you can't find him on your dial Bob will perform exorcisms over Skype (for a donation of $295). The other reliable source Jimbo goes to when researching cults is Ron Rhodes, learned author of "Unmasking the Anti-Christ: Dispelling the Myths, Discovering the Truth" and "The Wonder of Heaven: A Biblical Tour of our Eternal Home". Now some people might think that these authors might be "Questionable sources who have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest" but if you're Jimbo Wales, you'll go to the end of the earth or the remainders basket to get what you need to justify your opinion. Now at this point, I am going to predict the future. This conversation will terminated by an obliging Admin and I'll be site banned for annoying Jimbo.MOMENTO (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are not speaking the truth. You will not be site banned nor topic banned for responding with facts. What might be very interesting would be for you to justify your claim that when "researching cults" (which is not really something that I do) I read those two? What are you talking about? I'm sincerely interested to know.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I predict that anyone reading that will just go 'WTF?', mutter something entirely inappropriate under their breath, and try to forget they ever looked at it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. And that, of course, is the problem. No one gives a toss that Jimbo or his acolytes make edits based on such absurd sources. Perhaps you can demonstrate your NPOV credentials and remove any edit based on Larson and Rhodes. Prediction you won't.MOMENTO (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably going to regret asking, but where has Jimbo been citing Larson and Rhodes as sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell you because I'm not allowed to talk about it. But there are enough clues on this page for you to find out. Or you can email me and we can do charades on Skype.MOMENTO (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Charades unnecessary. You've 'not talked about it' quite sufficiently. And I can see no reason why I shouldn't talk about it, in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Momento, you have my full permission to answer AndyTheGrump's question, as I sincerely do not know what you are talking about. As far as I am aware, I have never read anything by, nor even heard of, either Bob Larsen or Ron Rhodes. I could of course be mistaken, and perhaps I have at some point made an edit restoring some citation to them or something of that nature - although I doubt it. But I have certainly never proactively researched by reading them and adding things to Wikipedia. I am a trusting person, and so my first Assume Good Faith approach is to assume that you are not completely making something up out of thin air. But unless you can name specifically what you are talking about - where I have cited such authors in Wikipedia (or elsewhere) then it is hard to respond. For the record, and as would be obvious to anyone who knows me, I don't think UFO authors or radio exorcists are ever likely to be citable sources, and if I made some error at some point, it is certainly important to me to know about it. Ball is in your court, otherwise people will quite rightly conclude that you are just trolling.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is (I assume) Prem Rawat. Your edits can be seen here: [1]. I've started a thread on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As I thought, I was restoring deleted material or moving things around. I agree with you raising it on the talk page and although I think further investigation is required, it strikes me that neither of those qualify as reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Too little too late Jimbo. And I am not going give ARB COM an excuse to site ban me because I break my topic ban by discussing a banned topic.MOMENTO (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually Jimbo, if you would like an open and truthful discussion on this subject you will have to remove the topic ban that was slapped on me by a minion who thought he was doing your will with no discussion or evidence and remains in place 2+ years later despite several appeals all the way to ARB COM who didn't even have the courtesy to review the evidence.MOMENTO (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your topic ban probably doesn't extend to talking about your topic ban. Btw, I'm interested to know, which arbcom case/enforcement request are you talking about? The earliest one in which you were involved (not counting the article probation) was in 2009. --RAN1 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Log (2012) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in an unusual category RAN1 normal Wikipedia rules don't apply to me but I'm going to take a chance here and take Jimbo at his word that "You will not be site banned nor topic banned for responding with facts". Here's an indisputable fact, the first comment by an ARB COM member at my most recent appeal [2] was to decline my appeal (I'm not inclined to lift a topic ban when it's actively being violated) because I had prepared some material for the appeal on my sandbox. Even though the ARC&A instructions say "You can paste the template into your user space, or use an off-line text editor, to compose your request in private". Damned if I do, damned if I don't, damned if I can understand how this insanity has been allowed to continue for seven years.MOMENTO (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Momento, you are in an unusual category only because you have not been permanently banned, as most disruptive agenda accounts are. Your POV is strong enough that there is no realistic chance you would ever be able to contribute to that topic area without causing drama. Accept it, forget it, and (novel idea!) actually edit on some other topic area, so maybe one day you will not be judged solely on your edits to Prem Rawat, because you will actually have a meaningful number of edits not to Prem Rawat that people will be able to review. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate is an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas. Wikipedia always documents these things according to the dominant scientific interpretation. That is why the creationists stalked off in a huff to create Conservapedia and the quacks set up wiki4cam. I sincerely hope Wikipedia will never fix this "problem", but preventing cranks, quacks, shills and other low-lifes form trying to "fix" it has been ArbCom's major task for a long time. Climate science, evolution, quack medicines and the like are battlegrounds, because Wikipedia is trusted - of course Wikipedia is trusted precisely because it does not cave in to lunatic charlatans. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JzG -A1candidate 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to any comments that criticise my editing without providing at least a few examples and certainly not to any that make personal attacks.MOMENTO (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But thanks, Guy, for demonstrating how minority editors are treated as second class citizens. Your assumption that I am a "disruptive SPA" is ironic considering two respected non SPA editors have described the edits I complained about as "comedy value" and the equivalent of citing "the marketing director of Coca Cola for an assertion that Pepsi rots your teeth?". That's funny, you bigotry is not.MOMENTO (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Larson and Rhodes reliable sources for anti-cult view on Prem Rawat?

I'd have preferred to have this discussion at WP:RSN, as I recommended myself ([3]). That I initiate the discussion here is because this could allow topic banned editor Momento to participate, because of the limited sanctuary Jimbo appears to be prepared to give him in that context on this page.

A second reason is that this might joggle Jimbo's memory that he copied this from the body of the article to the lede several times in 2011 and 2012. Also the current discussion at Talk:Prem Rawat#Balancing fourth sentence of the intro hasn't been very active lately.

The following has been removed as well from the lede as from the body of the article less than 24h ago:

Rawat has been called a cult leader in popular press reports and in anti-cult writings.

References

Additional info:

• Larger excerpts of the four mentioned sources (and several similar) can be found at Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of
• The 2011 consensus seems to have been made here: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 46#General view of him as cult leader

Questions:

• Are the sources sufficient for having the info in the lede?
• Are the sources sufficient for having the info in the body of the article?

Comments:

• Yes to both questions as far as I'm concerned. The popular press sources were never questioned, yet that content was inexplicably removed from the article too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion about this is ongoing at Talk:Prem_Rawat#A_simple_question, which you omitted. No idea why this is being discussed here, but if you want editors' input use a proper RfC. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cwobeel. This is a discussion about Jimbo Wales using unsuitable sources to further his POV and then characterising the people who object to his edits as an "extreme minority" who "tediously battle to keep out negative information about their beloved guru". No Jimbo, I and others object to you flouting Wiki policies to insert unacceptable edits without discussion and then publicly criticising anyone who objects. Now you try to excuse it as "I was restoring deleted material or moving things around". No you weren't, the material you inserted hadn't been in the lead for nearly two years and it was only there because you put it there in February 2011. And when I objected to it on that occasion I was topic banned for a year.[4][5] Fortunately it was removed within days by editors who do care about Wikipedia's integrity and follow its policies.[6] But it gets worse. Here's how Jimbo's second insertion of the same material unfolded. First, an editor (now banned for outing me) complains to Jimbo describing me as an "unconscionable idiot" which Jimbo sympathises with.[7] Within 24 hours an obliging admin takes the hint and topic bans me without discussion or evidence.[8] And less than five hours after I'm banned, Jimbo appears on the scene and reinserts the same flawed material without a word of discussion.[9] The edit described by others as "comedy value" and the equivalent of citing "the marketing director of Coca Cola for an assertion that Pepsi rots your teeth?" remains in a prominent place in a BLP against all Wiki policies and common decency for more than two years because the only people who care enough about the article have been driven off or topic banned. And as we now know, if it wasn't for this conversation that piece POV pushing would still be there in pride of place in the first paragraph of the lead. I commend Andy the Grump and Cwobeel for putting Wiki policies before POV. I, of course, remain permanently topic banned because I will always fight POV pushers like WilBeBack and Francis Schonken's efforts to distort a BLP by unbalanced editing, shonky sources, harassment and endless referrals to their friends in ARB COM. No evidence has ever been presented to justify my latest ban.[10] and there is no one to appeal to except Jimbo Wales who, as now been proven, will put his POV above the policies of Wikipedia. Admit you are wrong Jimbo and urban me.MOMENTO (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading this: please note that I have no particular opinion on the merits of Momento's topic ban, have no strong opinions on whether Rawat is or was a cult leader, and that my only involvement in this topic has been to question the appropriateness of using partisan Christian Evangelists with no credible academic credentials as sources for a prominent negative characterisation in the lede of a biography of a living person. I suspect, given Jimbo's earlier post, that he wasn't fully aware of the background of the authors when he copied the questionably-sourced material to the article lede, and also suspect that this whole business might have been handled better were it not for the partisan edit-warring that seems to have characterised the article for some considerable period. The solution to such problems is clear enough, and it doesn't involve further bickering over who did what back in 2008 or 2011. What the article needs most is input from uninvolved contributors who's objectives are based around the creation of appropriate encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading the above: User:AndyTheGrump I assume meant to write "whose" instead of "who's" since as it is written it makes no sense, looks retarded, and is just a horrendous thing to leave, I tried to fix it, but Andy would rather remain looking ignorant than allow some one to fix a problem with his sentence. So sad that this is how a Wikipedian portrays themselves, but is consistent with a lack of cooperation he has shown. Go ahead and delete this as a personal attack, which it isn't, I'm simply making an observation that, that will be Andy's next move.Camelbinky (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Andy's next move is to tell you to go troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, greatly appreciate the effort that you and Cwobeel are making but the article is just a symptom of the question that started this thread "Is there a mechanism to keep majorities from running amok?". If I were an expert on Dehradun guitars and that's all I cared to write about on Wikipedia, everyone would be pleased for my SPA input and appreciate the depth and breadth of my knowledge. And I doubt if anything I wrote would bother a fan of any of the mainstream guitars and I certainly wouldn't be called an "extremist" or derided as a SPA because I didn't also write about Fender, Martin and Gibson. And I certainly wouldn't expect the constant stream of drive by editors who launch attacks on me, my edits or the subject matter because they are so passionate about their guitar that they hate Dehradun guitars. But since my area of expertise involves people's core beliefs, I enter an area where many people have strong opinions and are more than happy to express them. After all, a key tenet of Christianity and Islam is non believers are sinners and will and should burn in hell for eternity. And some atheists dismiss people who believe in a higher power as gullible children. The result of this ingrained intolerance is clearly demonstrated by the uncountable atrocities inflicted on religious minorities by religious majorities. Now since the subject of my expertise represents a tiny minority of the population and presumably a tiny minority of the Wiki editor population, it is no surprise that there will be some editors who are vehemently opposed to the subject of my expertise. I get branded a fanatic and extremist or in Jimbo's words "an apologist". Not being an admin and being clearly out numbered by antagonists there is very little I can do about it, other than be scrupulously correct in my edits, sources and NPOV. But even that isn't enough when faced with a coterie of like minded admins. As a consequence I have been blocked and banned without reason as any proper investigation of my current ban makes clear. And that is the problem Jimbo should address.MOMENTO (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You've got to laugh. The main "evidence" that The Blade of the Northern Lights gives to ARB COM for my 2+ year topic ban is this - "If you click a few diffs ahead, you'll see DeCausa (talk · contribs) wholesale reverted said changes here and, later that day, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) re-added some more criticism which Momento et al. had moved and removed. In his capacity as an editor Jimbo has spent some time handling the Prem Rawat article, which is an extremely long-running problem area, and the day that I implemented all the topic bans there was a fairly brief thread at Jimbo's talkpage wherein he expressed serious concerns about the state of the article as it was at the time". What's funny about this? TBOTNL accuses me in his submission to ARB COM of removing Jimbo's now notorious insertion of Larson and Rhodes but, in fact, as I stated above, I was topic banned at the time and other editors quite correctly removed it. So TBOTNL wrongly accuses me of removing Jimbo's edit which should be removed. I'm banned if I do and banned if I don't. Hey Jimbo are you still happy to go along with this farce. OK, a little more then. In DeCausa's edit summary he writes "restore last version prior to series of edits by topic banned users removing sourced material". In fact, I was not topic banned when I made the edits. And if you click on the sixteen edits I made that DeCausa removed you will see that seven were trying to improve the position of a photo, seven were minor copy edits, adding space or splitting paragraphs. Of the two edits that did actually remove material, one summarised excessive criticism and one removed excessive praise, as in "One witness said that Rawat "played the whole time he was there ... he played with squirt guns, flashed pictures of himself for all to see, and took movies of everybody ... Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees. Enthusiastic new members spread the message that the 13-year-old Rawat could reveal God". I know people are reading this, it is time for you stand up and say "This isn't fair that Momento has been topic banned for two years for these edits".MOMENTO (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, if TBOTNL really did misrepresent you, then the proper avenue would have been to take this to AE. Bringing this up here just adds more fuel to the already-critical-mass problem that you seem to have with talking about the topic, and makes it less likely that they will consider that evidence given the storm you're trying to kick up here. Tl;dr [11] --RAN1 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already gone through several AE appeals, appealed to Jimbo several times and asked TBOTNL to unban me but to no avail. I've been ignored since I first exposed WillBeBack in 2009.[12] There's nothing more annoying to pompous people than being laughed at.MOMENTO (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

To demonstrate how your last opinion is wrong: Ha ha ha. Very funny. Type it again. However, you aren't a pompous person. QED. Btw, if you've gone through AE several times, then chances are they've heard your case, but they still think that you editing the article would still be a disaster with your attitude. Given that you aren't giving this up, that opinion probably won't change anytime soon because there's nothing to suggest your behavior or the encyclopedia will get any better if they unban you. --RAN1 (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Momento: Since you pinged me I feel I have to reply, but have virtually no interest in this. You have had a long record as tendentious POV pushing SPA on this topic. That's why you were topic banned, and that's why your appeals were turned down at AE and ArbCom. NYB when he declined your last appeal cited "Momento's multiple instances of sanctions before the topic-ban; this was not a sanction imposed for a first offense". As far as my revert above is concerned, I really can't remember because of the passage of time and because, as I say, it's not a topic of much interest to me. I can make a guess though: I suspect that I reverted because I assumed bad faith (although I may also have found something objectionable in your edits - I don't care enough to check). Your dreadful track record and recent topic ban justified that in my view (probably). I doubt that my edit summary was mistakenly made because I thought you had been topic banned when you made the edits - you were topic banned after your edits and 4 hours before i made the revert. More likely, it was shorthand for "This is an editor who shouldn't be let anywhere near this article, as evidenced by the recent topic ban. Almost everything he's done on this article is battleground tendentious POV pushing and I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt". That's what i'm guessing I was thinking anyway. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

After posting the above, I read your other posts on this page. Momento, I'm impressed with your chutzpah but you're not an "expert". You are only involved in Wikipedia to advance the cause of Prem Rawat (someone who I'd never heard of until coming across that article). You're editing has shown that for a decade. The fact that you got away with it for so long before being stopped shows how ineffective the "majorities" are at "runing amok". Thankfully you were eventually stopped. Multiple admins and multiple arbs have looked at your case and, as far as I am aware, no one has concluded that is safe to let you loose on that topic area again. And you asked for diffs from someone to evidence criticism of your editing? Check the AE and ArbCom cases threads where you have been banned, and re-affirmed that you should be banned, from having any involvement in articles relating to Prem Rawat. DeCausa (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that "Almost everything he's done on this article is battleground tendentious POV". What you will find are the consequences of resisting WillBeBack, Francis Schonken, Cirt and their like from adding stuff like Larson whilst removing stuff like Galanter.[13]MOMENTO (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved with the topic very much, unlike I think some others, I have to say that I cannot see any good reason for saying that a source which clearly calls some:thing a "cult" is not a realiable source for the statement that something has been called a "cult". I am familiar with the source, and actually grabbed a copy of it for free some time ago, and while I have no particular high regard for the work, it was one of the biggest and most prominent books, so far as I can tell at this date, in the then-current sourcing of the anti-cult movement, and so on that basis I would think that for this minimal information it probably is a reliable source. I guess I would say the same time about a minor Soviet-era newspaper which started some ridiculous fringe theory that got a lot of attention. If a source is one of the leading and most prominent sources in the use of a given description of a topic, even if the source might otherwise be, well, pure b.s., it is probably adequate and sufficient for sourcing the statement that it was one of the first presenters of. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add some Larson to the lead of Mick Jagger's article. How about -"According to some author Jagger has a masochistic attitude towards women".MOMENTO (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

While I think that Momento's Jagger suggestion is stretching the rhetoric rather too far, it is worth noting that Rhodes, the other Christian fundamentalist 'cult expert' describes the Mormon, Jehovah's Witness and Christian Scientist churches as 'cults' - and I somehow doubt that his opinion would be seen as worth including in the lede of articles on those topics. Certainly Larson and Rhodes are reliable for their own opinions - but should we be attributing so much weight to individuals with such a narrow perspective? It has been claimed on the article talk page that there are academic sources with good credentials also describing Rawat as a 'cult leader' - though perhaps in not such direct terms - and I can see no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't be citing them instead. Why use questionable sources when there are better ones? I can think of no reason other than perhaps (as was hinted at on the talk page [14]) Larson and Rhodes made for a simple soundbite, where proper treatment of academic sources would make for a less punchy lede. Not exactly encyclopaedic, I'd have to suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No academic describes Rawat as a "cult leader", more likely "guru", "teacher", Religious leader", "leader of a sect", a leader of a "New Religious Movement (MRN),"spiritual leader" etc.

In a limited article we must always weight up the value of sources. Some sources like Larson and Rhodes cry out for inclusion and lesser sources must sometimes be excluded. One of the first sources Francis Schonken thought should go was Marc Galanter, a physician, and professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at the New York University Medical Center, who wrote that "over the long term of membership, meditation also played an important role in supporting a convert's continuing involvement. An analysis of the relationship between the time members spent in meditation and the decline in their level of neurotic distress revealed that greater meditation time was associated with diminished neurotic distress".[98] FS removed that impeccably sourced material on July 16, 2013 at 8.47.[15] After all this is an encyclopedia, isn't it?MOMENTO (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I must thank Jimbo for allowing me this opportunity to pursue the issue of "Is there a mechanism to keep majorities from running amok?" So far the only pertinent diffs provided in this discussion show the majority Jimbo, TBOTNL and FS making all the bad edits and me making the only good edit. Jimbo inserts and then reinserts material from sources he now admits are unsuitable [16], TBOTNL falsely accusing me in his ARB COM evidence of removing Jimbo's edits [17], me removing gushing praise of Rawat from a non expert [18] and FS removing the positive comments of an expert, Marc Galanter, a physician, and professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at the New York University Medical Centre,[19]. On the diffs provided the anti Prem Rawat majority have made all the bad edits and I the only NPOV edit, and yet I'm the only one who has been censured and sanctioned. Ergo "There isn't a mechanism to keep majorities from running amok" and Jimbo needs to put it right. Am I allowed to offer a Bitcoin reward for any editor who can provide this conversation with five POV edits I've made in one year?MOMENTO (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Who gets to decide whether the edits are 'POV' or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy decides what is NPOV. Jumbo's edits to insert the opinion of non expert extremists fails BLP Balance - Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. TBOTNL makes a provably dishonest claim to further his POV and that's a FAIL. FS removal of impeccably sourced expert testimony to further his POV is a FAIL. And my removal of praise of Rawat because the praiser is not an expert is a PASS and goes contrary to the claim made here that my editing is about adding praise and removing criticism.MOMENTO (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked 'who' not what. If anyone is going to take you up on your bet, you will have to clarify the rules. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As to the "who", candidates might include the admin who topic banned him, the 4 admins at AE who declined his appeal and the 8 arbs who declined his appeal at ArbCom. DeCausa (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it definitely can't be Jimbo because we know he isn't impartial, and it can't be the 4 admins at AE who declined my appeal and the 8 arbs because they're the ones who completely missed WillBeBack's reign of terror for years, and it can't be by consensus because I'm in the minority. So I guess we have to rely on Wiki policy. Does the edit conform to WP:BLP policies and guidelines? But let's have a practice, you find 5 edits that I made in the year before I was topic banned that show me removing material that's negative about Rawat that isn't clearly justified by WP:BLP. And I can offset any edit you find by providing an edit where I have removed material that's positive to cover those edits where I have reduced material, both positive and negative, to improve readability and reduce excess verbiage.MOMENTO (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. All of those thirteen...in fact the entire Wikipedia community are ineligible. If they can't see that you are a paragon of NPOV then, by definition, they are biased. Who then is to judge? The Lord of the Universe, the Perfect Master^TM of course. DeCausa (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And you must take into account that far more positive material has been written about Rawat than negative so naturally there will be more positive edits than negative. Happy hunting.MOMENTO (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's it from me. Despite being topic banned for 2+ years for "Persistent battleground behaviour" not one diff has been presented to justify this ongoing ban. Thanks to Jimbo, Andy and Cwobeel for helping in rectifying the Larson/Rhodes edit. And thanks to Guy, Francis Shonken, Cullen, Camelbinky, RAN1 and De Causa for demonstrating that the majority is often wrong, rude and unswayed by fact. Perhaps someone can give some though as to why the negative opinion that "he was criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses and for leading an opulent lifestyle" remains in the lead whilst no reference to positive opinion is included. Impeccable, scholarly opinion like "Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers", and Rawat was seen as "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters" and that "these young people had a spiritual experience which deeply affected them and changed the course of their lives. It was an experience which moved many to tears of joy, for they had found the answer they had been seeking", Downton concluded that the students had changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life", remains languishing down below. And stellar info like "Marc Galanter, a physician, and professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse at the New York University Medical Centre, writes that "over the long term of membership, meditation also played an important role in supporting a convert's continuing involvement. An analysis of the relationship between the time members spent in meditation and the deicline in their level of neurotic distress revealed that greater meditation time was associated with diminished neurotic distress" has been removed from the article entirely by FS. But I am just one and you are many. There is no mechanism to keep majorities from running amok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momento (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, obviously. On the content of the matter, there's nothing wrong with the sources for the content, as imho diligently explained above by John Carter [20]. It is not "Wiki policy for editors to make judgment calls about a source's own religious beliefs" as argued by Sylviecyn. [21] That a discussion about sourcing took place four years ago does not alter the resulting consensus as argued by DeCausa [22] There's neither a policy reason nor a new consensus to exclude the sources. Jimbo's statement above "...followers of an Indian guru who has been called a "cult leader" manage to tediously battle to keep out negative information about their beloved guru..." remains unchallenged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The only confusion for me stemmed from the fact that there is more than one "Indian guru who has been called a 'cult leader'" whose followers have tediously battled to keep negative information off Wikipedia. I guess at least Momento narrowed it down for me, although I think this thread nicely demonstrates the foolishness of giving a topic-banned fanatic the go-ahead to expound on his idée fixe. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary Francis, Jimbo has already stated "it strikes me that neither of those qualify as reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)". Jimbo and I are right and you are wrong. It is therefore appropriate that I, or any impartial editor, would remove the Rhodes/Larson quote and that is exactly what's happened. And I'm sure Jimbo would now modify his quote to "...followers of an Indian guru are sometimes right to remove negative information about their beloved guru...". As for MastCell's comment, MC joins the growing list on this page of editors who make personal attacks on me for instigating a necessary improvement to Wikipedia. Perhaps Jimbo can do us all a favour and explain it to you himself. Something like "I made a bad edit in haste and Momento was right to draw it to my attention and it is appropriate to remove it". In the meantime you are providing an stark reminder of what it is like to be a minority editor. All attack but not one diff to support it.MOMENTO (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The best reason I can come up with for not indefinitely blocking you myself is that I don't want to deal with the attendant theatrics, and that I'm arguably (I would suggest not but still) involved due to your following me to an entirely unrelated article about two years ago. If you seriously can't see why your comments above could possibly lead others to conclude you're tendentious POV pusher, well... since someone once said it so much better than I ever could, to the beautiful and the wise, the mirror always lies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome TBOTNL Since the only POV I've been pushing on this page is to remove inappropriate material from the lead, I can't see how any impartial observer can do anything but be grateful that I brought this subject up. But now that you're here, the least you can do is present the diffs that support your actions to indefinitely topic ban me for "persistent battleground behaviour" . And, in deference to "persistent", I think you should provide at least five. Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That you yourself can't see it doesn't mean everyone else can't. I suppose the lines preceding my above quote are also applicable; "All puffed up with vanity, we see what we want to see". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

But for the discussion of the Larson and Rhodes sources in the context we are done I suppose. To quote somewhat more of Jimbo's sentence: "...although I think further investigation is required, it strikes me that neither of those qualify as reliable sources." (bolding added) – further investigation showed nothing wrong with the sources in the context, and has superseded Jimbo's superficial comment on their unsuitability. I didn't say all of Jimbo's statements above remained unchallenged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the "further investigation"? I see none. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I refer e.g. to John Carter's contribution above ([23]). Quoting one sentence: "I am familiar with the source, and actually grabbed a copy of it for free some time ago, and while I have no particular high regard for the work, it was one of the biggest and most prominent books, so far as I can tell at this date, in the then-current sourcing of the anti-cult movement, and so on that basis I would think that for this minimal information it probably is a reliable source." – qualifies as "further investigation" I would think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very quick to jump to conclusions on the basis of the single comment that supports your viewpoint, but there are other comments that say the opposite. This is by no mean settled as you argued. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, I lived in Denver when the Divine Light Mission was happening and knew Bob Mishler and John Hand well and met many people who had "received knowledge." If it was not a cult, the word has no meaning. However, reliable sources are necessary, not the writings of anti-cult crusaders. I can see how you might have made the mistake you did, but I'm afraid you were going on the obvious truth that it was a cult, which barely needs a source, rather than evaluating the sources used. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

...which is largely missing the point as we are discussing the content (& sourcing) of the Prem Rawat article, not the content (& sourcing) of the Divine Light Mission article.

The "cult" view is mentioned in the DLM article (along with non-cult views), not because it "barely needs a source" but because it has thoroughly scrutinized sources (don't minimize the work that has gone into this).

The question is: how does one go from "sort of" a leader of "sort of" a cult to the perception of a cult leader in the BLP article (without making OR-like connections between reliable sources that confirm the cult bit for the movement/organization, with reliable sources that confirm the leadership of the movement/organization bit)? The anti-cult literature is part of the reception history of the person (as is the popular view in newspapers). No excuses are needed to use either of these sources to illustrate how this person is/was perceived/received. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A separate thread regarding Cultural Marxism

In this edit, you write "I have no strong opinion on whether the merger should happen or not, but given the level of outrage that this has generated, a wider discussion is warranted."

In this edit, you write "I'm saying that the conclusion of the Cultural Marxism thing was clearly wrong, not NPOV, and in fact just wrong. If anyone wants to talk about that, we should discuss it in a separate thread." This, I believe, could be appropriately characterized as "a strong opinion."

What changed? What caused this change? When did this change happen? Given the change, why did you not weigh into the various discussions even once after you set them in motion? Hipocrite (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

At the first time, I had not looked at the issue very much at all. I had seen a couple of arguments about it and viewed the main problem as being procedural - i.e. one of the biggest advocates and proposer of the merger, self-identifying as Marxist, closing the discussion, does not conform to best practices. I paid little attention after that, although I did do a little bit of research.

After the discussion closed again, with the same result, I become more interested and did further research. The issue is not subtle, as it turns out, but rather obvious.

Frankfurt School is a perfectly legitimate encyclopedia topic as a total standalone. I am not an expert on this school of thought, but as far as I can tell, much of the article is quite good, in the way that historical articles about intellectual matters often are.

The article does possibly break down a bit when it gets to Frankfurt_School#Conspiracy_theory, in that it liberally quotes and cites sources claiming that "Cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory without any responses from proponents. One is left here with the clearly erroneous perception that the term is only used by "conspiracy theorists" and the "LaRouche movement", a "lunatic fringe" (from the title of one of the sources), and so on. That's not good, and clear POV pushing, but that isn't my fundamental concern.

My fundamental concern, and the reason why I say that merger was clearly wrong, is that "Cultural Marxism" is a meme - a contemporary bit of controversial terminology. Most people who search for "Cultural Marxism" will be seeking to learn more about that meme, and will be somewhat bewildered in a bad way to land at an article about what, for most people, is a fairly obscure academic school of thought. The old article was problematic in various ways (not least of which being more Marxist POV-pushing, but perhaps equally plagued by POV-pushing from the other side) but it at least - from the very first version created back in 2006 - was actually about the topic. To quote that very first version: "Cultural Marxism is a term used to by some people to describe what they percieve as an attempt to undermine western civilisation through internal cultural means, rather than direct economic and military means following the fall of the Soviet Union, thereby bringing about a Marxist revolution." That sentence could be refined to a degree, but at least it has the merit of telling the reader what the term is.

There is a very big difference between the contemporary concept/meme and the Frankfurt School as a historical topic. The obvious problem that I see is that for readers who don't know a lot about the term, read it somewhere, and then are directed to an article that is only tangentially relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Another example of our forgetting that we should provide a useful and usable service to our readers. DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

While not fully endorsing the proposed language (disagreeing with much of it, actually), I do agree with the fundamental premise that so-called "Cultural Marxism" is effectively a common and WP-notable meme which needs its own stand-alone article. Unfortunately persistence pays in Wikiland and a bad result was replicated. The redirect outcome is clearly a bit of POV shenanigans. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Citations to RS? "Cultural Marxism" is a meme" I did not participate in this and don't know enough to write an encyclopedia article about any of it, although I did strongly suggest to Jimbo Wales that he should state his research at the time. But now? If it's a meme, there must be serious RS memetic study - which RS study demonstrates and documents its beginning, and documents its evolution. Cultural Marxism is there right now for you to edit (so go clean up the POV) but it is still unclear what or how you would write concerning its memetic origin and development. As for whether it needs its own article, obviously you have some convincing to do there, but the way to begin is go expand Cultural Marxism, if you have the RS to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely disingenuous to contend that Cultural Marxism "is there right now for you to edit" — it has been deleted and converted to a redirect to a section of a tangential piece. Really shameful argument you are making there... Trout. Carrite (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And a trout back to you; it is there right now for you to edit (there is nothing disingenuous about that), but yes, I was unaware that it was not a merge (as I said, I did not participate). Go forth, and edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) And get a copy of the old article, if you would like. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The best approach, strictly in terms of implementing Alan's excellent suggestion, would be to undelete the article (so editors can review the history) and get rid of the redirect. But there was just a discussion and a close, so that would be controversial. However, I don't see why undeleting (to restore the history for editors to see what can be salvaged) and keeping the redirect (to preserve status quo for the moment) would generate any controversy, and it would be a valuable first step.

I disagree, though, with Alan's views on what is necessary in order to establish that "Cultural Marxism" is a contemporary political meme or phrase which differs from the perfectly valid historical topic of "Frankfurt School" requires "a serious RS memetic study". That's not something we normally require. All that is needed is to show that the term is in play in reliable sources - we don't need some kind of separate "memetic study" (whatever the hell that is).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Memetic study is the study of memes, it's not "a separate" anything, it is a way to refer to study of memes. And "serious" is merely just a reference back to RS secondary sources. The pedia generally requires multiple, reliable, secondary sources for notability and so as not to have original research.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we need more than that, because we don't carry independent articles on every single term that is in play in reliable sources. We need sufficient sourcing to show that "Cultural Maxism" is an encyplopaedic topic in its own right, and that a substantial article could be put together without needing to duplicate other content on WP or to be filled-out with trivia.

When you say that the wrong decision was made previously, you should note that at the time there were actually three articles to consider, the two mentioned plus Frankfurt School conspiracy theory. Since this article seems to be on a topic that's completely indistinguishable from "Cultural Marxism", I think it's hard to argue that WP needed all three articles. That article has also subsequently been deleted, though, which may have been a bad descision. But if anyone really wants to, then it should be possible to reverse that be fleshing out the relevant section of Frankfurt School until a content fork can be justified, perhaps under the name "Cultural Marxism". It seems to me that that would be a better approach than arguing for the creation of what would probably be a stub to begin with, with unclear future prospects. Formerip (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the fools in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can generally provide deleted history if asked (some exceptions may apply - copyright infringement, gross BLP violations, etc.) But regardless, anyone who wants the deleted copy from Cultural Marxism can have it. WilyD 11:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

First I think it was a bad outcome - harmful to the integrity of the encyclopedia.

I've been researching the topic ever since this became controversial. What's become apparent to me is that the "contemporary meme" is not used only by people who are extremists, conspiracy theorists, etc. It's used by some conservative scholars who seem respectable enough and are not alleging a conspiracy. It's also still used by some Marxist scholars and mainstream intellectual historians - partly talking about different issues in parallel but partly talking about the same thing. I've tracked the term back to at least 1973 when it was apparently used by Trent Schroyer in a book called The Critique of Domination, and it seems that other Marxist scholars got it from Schroyer (Richard Weiner attributes the term to Schroyer in his 1981 book Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology). While Schroyer may not have meant exactly the same thing by it as someone like William S. Lind, they are probably not talking about entirely separate things, either. I still think there's scope for a good article on this topic that would pull it all together, but it would take some time to dig into all the available reliable sources. The version of the article from May 2014 that David Auerbach referred in an article that he published elsewhere was a lot better than recent versions, but it was still under-researched and relied too heavily on a fairly informal paper by Douglas Kellner.

I'd be prepared to put in some more work on this over time to help get a good, informative article on cultural Marxism, but I've found it frustrating. It's difficult to make progress if the article is going to be a site for culture warring, as it has been. I was also surprised that my pleading for more time for people wanting to work seriously on the article didn't seem to be received sympathetically... but oh well (I don't mean to sound passive aggressive, but I probably will anyway). Again, I do think it damages the integrity of the encyclopedia if we don't have an article on cultural Marxism that's clearly neutral and informative, or if we must redirect we could do so to a properly informative and NPOV discussion within a broad and clearly related article like Marxist cultural theory (we don't have an article on that broad topic, but perhaps we should). Metamagician3000 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get myself involved in this row again, but I will say that Mr Wales' understanding of Wikipedia policies seems a bit off the mark. I would specifically draw his attention to WP:NEO (a section of the policy titled "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"). I believe this is what Mr Walker was referring to above. I would note the following text:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Please note, Mr Wales, that simply showing "that the term is in play in reliable sources" is explicitly railed against by the neologisms policy. This is for good reason, as was evident in the late "article", as merely gathering assorted works that have the term "cultural Marxism" appear in them does not make an article, but original research and synthesis. If he can provide sources that do what the neologisms policy asks them to do, then I suggest that he should do so. Otherwise, we've only got his own original research that "Cultural Marxism is a meme", and nothing to back-up that assertion. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding policy at all. The point is that there are a great many reliable sources which discuss the term or concept. They were well cited in the deleted article and it's very very easy to find them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There were no such sources cited in the article, which is why it was deleted, and why a panel of three administrators closed the discussion as "delete". If such sources were provided, I would support the existence of the article. Please provide them. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are completely wrong Jimbo, and if you are getting your information from Mr. Magicmagician, he very much believes in the conspiracy theory. There were no scholarly references to the term, and if you want to say it's a meme that needs to be covered, the SPLC states it is used by anti semites, Neo-Nazis, right-wing Christians and misogynists to describe people who believe everyone(including Blacks, Latinos, Women, Homosexuals, Jews) should be treated equally. So your intro sentence for your imaginary article is absurd.Dave Dial (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me also add, it's no surprise why Wikipedia is almost exclusively white males, using systemic bias against those you claim to want to attract. Hilarious. Dave Dial (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The deletion of the cultural Marxism article makes me feel furious and I blame RGloucester for getting rid of the article. (I also thought you were indef-blocked, that you asked administrators to block you. Nevertheless: with the current events in Europe due to cultural Marxists (or whatever you want to call them), I'm even more furious, this is a very important concept. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Per my understanding of the suggestion above, I have restored the history under the redirect. The redirect is still protected. I recommend starting Draft:Cultural Marxism and then going to WP:DRV after a decent amount of thoughtful debate between the various competing POVs (I'd advocate a moratorium on starting the review before February, as a finger in the air estimate). We can histmerge in future if needed, or any admin can move the history out from under the redirect, to the Draft. I hope this helps. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  This is more and more Gamergate bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• You are exactly right, and Auerbach and Mr.Magicmagician have Jimbo's ear. Both very much pro-GG andor anti-womanfeminism. Dave Dial (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This kind of personal attack is outrageous not least because it is false. Mr. Auerbach is neither pro-GG nor anti-feminism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, anyone who thinks that I am either anti-feminist or uncritically pro-GG, let alone "very much pro-GG" is barking up the wrong tree. As it happens, I think the GG people have a point about some of the gaming journalism that has upset them, and I want the GG article to be informative and neutral. But I have spoken out under my real identity against the public shaming of Zoe Quinn - the very sort of thing that I despise and fiercely oppose - and I disagree strongly with many of GG's "operations". None of that's the point, though, and we shouldn't have to defend or explain opinions we've expressed off-wiki. It's utterly unacceptable to try to put people in that position. My involvement here relates entirely to my perception of the integrity of the encyclopedia. Metamagician3000 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Way to go ad hominem there... :golf clap: Carrite (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong. Yes, exactly this is more of the same bullshit that we see at Gamergate — a clique of editors imposing House POV "for the greater good," ruling all contrarian efforts out of bounds due to "unreliable" sourcing or on specious "BLP" grounds. It is all very slick and neat — and lacks intellectual honesty, I might add. NPOV is simply tossed aside when it is politically expedient to do so. That is even more abhorrent than are the right wing politics of the enthusiasts of the concept of so-called "Cultural Marxism," in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, stop complaining that your proposal to add that terrible Gamergate blog of unknown authorship that was full of attacks on living persons is evidence that the Gamergate article is being overrun with SJWs. You should know better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You've proven yourself quite the warrior on this issue. We'll see how that works out for ya. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• @DD2K, Neither of those statements are correct. And if Cultural Marxism was deleted because of anti-GamerGate then it should be restored. Our GamerGate article and draft are both atrocious because of POV ownership issues. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand why this article was deleted in the first place. Although the term "cultural marxism" is currently being used by pro-GG people (and others [24]), it's existed for decades as a school of thought.[25][26][27][28] The Frankfurt Institute is the best-known and the first institution associated with this field of study but there's another place studying the subject, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK,[29] so it cannot be said that the Frankfurt article encompasses the entire subject of cultural marxism. The article was in bad shape but that shouldn't be a reason to delete it. Ca2james (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely the same absurdity all over again. Is there no end to madness? Carrite, do you think it is too much to ask for sources that support the text of an article (WP:V)? If you've got reliable sources that support an article in line with WP:NEO, why don't you provide them? Above me, we have the same old sources appearing all over again, and once again, they do not support the idea of any kind of "school of thought" called "Cultural Marxism". I particularly like this new one provided by Mr James, which is likely copied from our own 2009 and earier version of this article, which existed prior to the book's publication. Do you see what happens when we proliferate false information? It gets copied into books, despite having NO BASIS in sources. I have not done anything "dishonest". I am perfectly capable of saying that I have been honest amidst a sea of dishonesty, in this row. Say what you want, but until sources are provided (that satisfy WP:NEO), there is no basis for an article. RGloucester — ☎ 06:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trying to prove a concept? "Cultural marxism", according to SPLC, has been around for decades. It's a right wing name for a left wing movement. The name, framework and concept certainly exist. Having a WP article that describes it is not the same as endorsing it or believing it. You can even buy the video "CULTURAL MARXISM - The Corruption of America." It's at least 5 years old so tagging it as GamerGate related is asinine. Buchanan has been talking about a culture war for decades. We have all sorts of "isms" that seek to create identities or to box others into an identity. The labels and debates exist regardless of whether anyone self-describes as that particular "ism." See Homosexual agenda for a similar construct - there doesn't actually have to be people with a "Homosexual agenda" (whatever that might entail) for a term that describes what a group uses to describe a political movement/action. --DHeyward (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The SPLC article is used as a source for the "conspiracy" section of the Frankfurt School article (not a section I'm keen to defend), and deals entirely with the Frankfurt School. Buchanan is a commentator, and his use of the term does not demonstrate notability (see WP:NEO). Where does this term exist? Please provide sources, preferably ones that are not copied versions of unsourced Wikipedia articles. RGloucester — ☎ 07:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's "Dennis L. Dworkin. Cultural Marxism in postwar Britain: History, the New Left, and the origins of cultural studies. Duke University Press, 1997" and "Weiner, Richard R. Cultural Marxism and political sociology. Sage Publications, 1981." There are lots more. --DHeyward (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dworkin has been refuted tens of thousands of times, as has the Wiener article. Perhaps you could actually read the deletion discussion? Citations must support the text. Usage of a term does not demonstrate notability (WP:NEO). RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Then here for Marxist cultural theory. There's enough for it's own article. Quibbling over "Marxist cultural theory" vs. "Cultural marxism" isn't something academics fretted about. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to write an article about Marxist cultural theory, or Marxist analyses of culture, feel free. I would support such an article. That's not called "cultural Marxism", unless you can find a source as such. No such sources have been provided, because they don't exist. If you really want to write that article, get on with it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Jameson on Jameson: Conversations on Cultural Marxism" it's use predates your interpretation. --DHeyward (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the rare descriptive usage of the phrase "cultural Marxism" (meaning "Marxism as applied to culture", equivalent to something like "Marxism and Culture") is known to exist, but it is not the usual way to refer to such things, and is in fact extremely rare to the point of non-notability. The standard way that people speak about such things is as "Marxist cultural theory". RGloucester — ☎ 21:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not quite rare as Jameson is inescably tied to New Left politics. While it's certainly possible to apply Marxist theory to culture and it may have been done academically as a broad topic, it is the practical application of theory through culturally driven political movements. This was a shift in thought and practice. See Fredric Jameson#Research into Marxism. --DHeyward (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Letting myself and the other deleting admins know that this discussion was taking place and that the article has been undeleted had its history restored would have been nice (pinging @Huon: and @Spartaz:). Those in the above discussion - Jimbo included - should read the deletion discussion, where a chance to show that sufficient reliable sources about this subject took place, including discussion on most of the sources mentioned above. In the sprawling discussions there the outcome (agreed upon by three admins) was that there were not enough sources. I can't see the above discussions or undeletion achieving much other than further arguments and edit warring. Sam Walton (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While "Notability is not temporary," as we say at AfD, the same does not hold true for a finding of non-notability. That's just a matter of improving sourcing and not resubmitting a substantially identical piece. Of course, there seems to be full protection up now, since this is a really big, big, big issue to some people, it would seem. (Why is this redirect full protected, by the way? Has there been edit-warring over the redirect of which I am not aware? Don't we have means for dealing with that? Or is this just a matter of Admins Who Know Best wheeling out their heavy guns to maintain a new controversial status quo, using power tools to "win" a legitimate debate? Just curious...) Carrite (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My opinion on these comments is starting to lean towards trolling. The article history was resurrected to promote discussion of it, not discussion of admin protection abuse in cases where it is undeleted for the sake of discussion (where the fuck did that come from by the way?). --RAN1 (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is mistaken. I am genuinely upset about what seems to me the abuse of our AfD processes for political ends by a clique. It is offensive to me, it is intellectually dishonest, it is contrary to the idea of intellectual freedom and our mission of the presentation of the sum of human knowledge rather than some sort of Purified Official Doctrine in an attempt to manipulate the consciousness of our readers. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my opinion is right on point. You're making a big deal out of the fact that the redirect (which now has a crapton of article history behind it) was protected when it was undeleted for the sake of viewing the old text. There is a proper way to do this (deletion review), but trying to get hornets out of a pinecone isn't one of them. Also, your logic that deleting CM is contrary to the project's mission is flat-out wrong. The purpose of the encyclopedia is to provide information on notable subjects based on verifiable sources. It's not, however, a venue for presenting minor, non-notable (minimal influence outside of its proponents) conspiracy theories as anything but what they are. That is what is intellectually dishonest, not because it "manipulates the consciousness of our readers", but because it's a flat-out lie and it bloats a topic which is relatively unknown. --RAN1 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Good work DHeyward for finding the piece on Homosexual agenda. That is exactly, precisely a phrase from the same orbit as "Cultural Marxism." For any of you who might be interested in obtaining the wikimarkup code for the last published version of that piece to mine it for a potential new piece in the future, I've snared it and posted it up on the Arbcom-Gamergate thread at Wikipediocracy.com ("Another day, another Gamergate ArbCom case"). It will remain there even if warriors manage to suppress the edit history again. This is but another chapter in Wikipedia's war on Gamergate, after all... Carrite (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? Like what purpose does this serve to you, Carrite?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand for the encyclopedia against political manipulation. Using "home field advantage" and power tools to enforce an Official POV is repulsive to me... I think we are in substantial agreement as to the actual nature of the concept of so-called "Cultural Marxism." I support freedom of information and discussion about it, however, rather than trying to annihilate and sweep under the rug. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Samwalton. Having now reviewed the discussion, I too can quibble about things but most the comments here on Jimbo's page now either appear to be users who failed to convince the editorial judgement, and should wp:dropthestick -- or Jimbo Wales, who has only himself to blame for not participating (and, just complaining about how things did not go his way and oddly saying that there are substantial secondary RS for the statement "Cultural Marxism is a meme" but then not providing them: here is the google search for that statement [30] ). As WP:V says: "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article . . . and that it should be [] presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (emphasis added) That the editorial judgement was generally WP:NOTDICTIONARY is hardly the big deal that the ones who failed to convince the discussion claim - at most, it's a meme according to Jimbo - so anyone who looks at Cultural Marxism can find it, if you have the sources to show that. And some day, you may be able to convince others that it's a travesty not to have a short separate article on a meme. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Will it be as good as Doge (meme)?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@ASW. We had a split decision in a deletion debate that ended with a suppression of edit history and a Full Protection lockdown of the redirect and now we have people at the Administrator's Noticeboard complaining vehemently about the edit history being revealed — obviously in an attempt to prevent any form of recreation of an article about the topic. Calling a spade a spade here. This is a politicized war being waged against what seems to me a WP-notable article topic. So, yeah, there's gonna be pushback when stuff like that is pulled... Carrite (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Horrid accusations with no basis in reality. I have no political positions. I don't believe in the concept of politics. The article was deleted by consensus, and it must remain deleted unless a deletion review determines otherwise. If you think the deletion was improper, please file a review. Otherwise, don't complain about the article remaining deleted when consensus was determined to endorse deletion, which in Wikipedia terms (WP:DEL) means removing "the current version and all previous versions from public view". If you want the article back, file a review. Otherwise, accept the result. RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A split what? You've failed to convince in the keeping of a separate article - you're upset about that - things like that happen on the Pedia, everyday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the consensus policy is still flying over your head. That's a shame. Ironic that when consensus goes against you, you protest it to all hell, but when an admin does something unilaterally (out of good faith) to your benefit, and then reverted due to lack of consensus, you support it all the way. This pattern is pretty disruptive, and your time would be better spent on other topics, you aren't going to get anywhere with this angle anytime soon. --RAN1 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm okay with a consensus to redirect, I'm a disciplined Wikipedian, believe it or not... I think that was a misreading of the actual debate, but refs do make bad calls from time to time. However that doesn't excuse in the slightest the effort to stymie or stop the legitimate effort to rewrite and retry. There was a new source in The Guardian on Jan. 18, 2015. It takes exactly three to establish notability under the GNG, sometimes two. Non-notability is not permenant. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece (see WP:SOAP, and more importantly, WP:NEWSORG), and useless for establishing notability. Please also read WP:NEO. Please also beware of the "circular sourcing" (see NEWSORG) of this particular op-ed, given that it cites Wikipedia's article on the Frankfurt School. Notability is not the only issue, though it is an important one. Regardless, I believe I've made clear that I'm fine with a new article on the subject, presuming it meets Wikipedia policies. However, the old edit history must remain deleted, unless a deletion review determines otherwise, per our deletion policy. RGloucester — ☎

There are a whole bunch of problems with the more recent AfD. One problem is that the "delete and redirect" decision was not even remotely supported by consensus. Exactly one person made that suggestion out of all the people involved and there was no clear reason why such an outcome was necessary. The admin triumvirate who supported that result essentially argued for deletion as clean-up, even though that is not the purpose of AfD and making it a redirect avoided any such issue. One also has to take into consideration that all three admins were personally approved by RGloucester, who was the original involved non-admin closer of the merge discussion that started this whole debacle. In addition, the closing admin apparently went to a subreddit where people supported the deletion then said there that he had been looking at Reddit discussions regarding the article prior to the close and reached very negative conclusions about the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained how the 'delete and redirect' wasn't really a delete and redirect so much as it was a 'delete then redirect because its sensible' many times now. That we argued for deletion as cleanup is a completely baseless claim. There was no personally approving by RGloucester, he posted on AN asking for admins, and a few of us said OK. "he had been looking at Reddit discussions regarding the article prior to the close and reached very negative conclusions about the subject." I said no such thing. I'm getting pretty sick of this whole topic now. Sam Walton (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I was puzzled when an editor asserted that "This is but another chapter in Wikipedia's war on Gamergate". As Google is my friend, I found this blog and this edit to Kotaku, and I still am puzzled. In my opinion:

• Too many editors are quick to anger at anything even remotely related to Gamergate and seem prepared to do battle at any perceived movement by “the other side”. Everyone who acts that way should be subject to discretionary sanctions, as is being discussed elsewhere.
• As an intellectual exercise, remove the statements from the obvious Gamergate WP:POVWARRIORs (on both sides) from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_Marxism_(2nd_nomination).
• Even without doing the above, I see a insufficient policy-based arguments for keeping the article, and sufficient policy-based articles for deletion - in summary, the same findings of the three uninvolved administrators.

Too much time has been wasted on this already. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I support a decision that agrees with what I said! Objective expert analysis from JoeSperrazza.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"I oppose a decision that disagrees with what I want!" Objective expert analysis from The Devil's Advocate. Resolute 19:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that there's a draft and a proper talk page to discuss it on (thank you, whoever sorted that out) maybe we should just focus on improving the draft to the point where its quality as an article fairly representing the issue and its multiple sourced interpretations speaks for itself and its restoration is uncontroversial? This would obviously need all sides of the previous debates to get involved constructively. Although I strongly disagreed with the article's deletion, would a decent compromise be to accept the current redirection until we've got an article to restore that a reasonable proportion of editors would support as worthy of the encyclopedia? Although the status quo is very bad, the status quo ante wasn't great either. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty weak tu quoque you got going there as I am not making some pretentious analysis and my only stance at AfD was to say it should be a merge discussion. The reality is that the decision was "delete and redirect" yet there is exactly one person out of dozens who actually supported such a result. Nothing in discussion suggested that "delete and redirect" was better or more supported than any of the other various suggestions. Above the closing admin tries to suggest that the consensus was delete, but it is hard to believe that when his own analysis shows nearly half the people saying delete offered a redirect or merge as an alternative and even those pushing for a straight deletion make comments that would just as easily support a merge or redirect.

He also denies that clean-up was cited as a justification, but his own comment on the talk page was "The content under discussion is a mess, appears not to be well based on the available sources and is subject to entrenched external views. Even the keep side has highlighted problems with the content." Another admin involved in the discussion states "The existing content is a mess and TNT should apply - therefore the text should be Deleted". Neither Sam's analysis nor the AfD supports deletion. It could support a redirect/merge, but not deletion. The fact they come to such an absurd decision backed by exactly one person in the discussion who does not even remotely come close to making a compelling case for that action makes one wonder given how they came to be the closers of that discussion and the closer's off-wiki comments after the close.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Apart from your corruption! charges, which are the usual claim for "thing not liked." Your critique seems rather wonkish. Where the discussion determines that coverage is generally already available/better elsewhere on the pedia - AfD outcomes are a panoply of rearranging deck chairs ("merged, redirected, incubated, etc. etc. etc.") In the end, Cultural Marxism is there to edit/expand. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, this is far more than "thing not liked" as their own analysis discredits their decision and the whole situation would look unseemly to any outside observer. RGloucester is a self-identified Marxist who actively engaged in the original merge discussion yet closed that discussion despite it being divided and in a way that favored his position on the article. When the article was put up for deletion after his action was reversed, RGloucester went and requested admins then personally approved them and was popping up on their talk pages to confirm them. He even removed comments from the AfD talk page that were criticizing the decision. Unfortunately, this is just one topic area where I have seen RGloucester act like he has some authority not given to him on matters where he is clearly involved.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 10:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, if you don't think the AfD was closed properly, take it to WP:DRV. If you don't think an admin has behaved appropriately, take it to WP:AN/I or ArbCom. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by ranting here but is it really productive to building an encyclopedia? Sam Walton (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Challenging actions that are counter-productive would be productive in my view.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You have valid options as Samwalton9 has told you, but, to this outside observer, if you choose to focus on content - making ad hominems such as, 'so-and-so is a Marxist!, so everything they do, might do, or even touch, or be near is corrupt and suspect' - you will be red-baiting, and breaking several policies (as well as making logical fallacies). As of now, the only thing you have argued is that Rglouster transparently on-wiki requested closers in the usual way closers are found and discussed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not an ad hominem as RGloucester being a Marxist is directly relevant to the fact the article we are discussing explicitly concerns Marxism.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It is ad hominem -- you are denigrating him for affiliation, instead of addressing the substance - and if you continue in inappropriate ways, you have been warned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The relentless Scorched earth campaign continues.... Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Cultural_Marxism. Nobody's going to improve anything while it's constantly under threat of not just deletion but complete removal from the record. Which I guess is part of the plan. JimmyGuano (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly believe the only way to make that article less horrible is to require every editor currently in the history to leave it to others, on pain of bannination. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Wales on this issue. It sounds like the previous Cultural Marxism page was being used more to denigrate political beliefs and POV push than actually address the content matter. There is a definite segment of editors interested in labeling any Right-wing viewpoint as fringe regardless of the scholarship, polling, or evidence involved. More objectivity in standards is needed when determining what does and doesn't qualify as 'fringe.' --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

For all that the term 'fringe' gets bandied about you'd think a clear test would be established for how to define what is and is not 'fringe.' Otherwise, the risk is that the same inappropriate marginalization techniques will be used to discriminate based on ideological viewpoint as seen in the IRS targeting controversy. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are legal principles regarding "limitations of actions" or Statutes of limitations, which should have applied to this article that existed since 2006. Plus, the article was very popular. Intuition or common sense tells the reader there was nothing wrong with the article or maybe it needed a few minor improvements. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia have Statute of Limitations though? That reasoning seems to suggest that any old article should be assumed acceptable, which would seem similar to the principle of 'recentism' opposed by WP:MEDDATE. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Another take on the topic

In a thread launched by Michaelsuarez on Wikipediocracy ("Metapedia schism") he notes the establishment of a new "racist encyclopedia" and links to an announcement on the neofascist website Stormfront. This includes among its articles the distilled essence of what the white nationalist movement claims "Cultural Marxism" is — which is something to keep in mind as part of the ongoing Wikipedia debate (and serves as a point of reference of what an article on the topic should absolutely not look like). HERE'S THE LINK if anyone is interested. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And if you're really interested in right wing spin on the topic, here is a A YOUTUBE DOCUMENTARY running more than 90 minutes — more time than I want to put into it certainly... Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America is the title, with money content up front from former Nixon speechwriter and Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan opining on the topic. I suspect that Buchanan is if not the originator, at least the major source of propagation of the concept of so-called "Cultural Marxism," which he juxtaposes to "political and economic communism" as the underlying ideology of secular society. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, that video is actually pretty funny, with Antonio Gramsci as "one of Marx's disciples with a new idea on how to take over the world..." Carrite (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The video above includes G. Edward Griffin comments (13:15) — his being a very "hot" BLP at Wikipedia in which our neutrality principles are being cast aside, it seems to me. This is a giant interrelated political foodfight connected to the Gamergate dispute, I am coming to see. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha!!! "Critical theory was doing its job — especially on people like Charles Manson.............. and John Lennon." (25:30) Carrite (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The Grauniad has also linked this fight to Gamergate, which explains the amount of vitriol being splashed around. Some people need to chill before they end up with an enforced timeout. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Socialism vs. Cultural Marxism?

I notice the above subsection contains some derogatory comments directed at "right wing spin" on the topic. I do think it relevant to point out that socialist, secular, formally atheist countries killed more people in the 20th century than all other types of government combined. So laughing off cultural marxism as a baseless myth seems a bit premature. See also Mass killings under Communist_regimes.

• Asian Gendercide: 160-200 million women are missing in the world[31][32][33] due largely to sex-selective abortion which has occurred in Asian countries such as China with its One Child policy and forced abortions.[34]
• Great Leap Forward: 18-45 million died under the famine and genocide by Communist China, an openly atheistic government which sought to stamp out organized religion. China continues using a Socialist market economy today, meaning the state controls major aspects of production.
• Soviet Union: An estimated 18-25 million died from the gulags and famine under Joseph Stalin. Like China, the USSR was openly secular and sought to destroy organized religion while practicing a socialist market economy and state ownership of industry.
• World War I and World War II: The German word for Nazis literally translates as "National Socialist Party" and the party is based on the concept of Social Darwinism. Ultimately 15-65 million died from World War I and 40-71 million from World War II. Hitler persecuted the Confessing Church and had its leader Dietrich Bonhoeffer put to death, and over 800 German protestant pastors were arrested including Martin Niemöller. Like other socialist countries of its time, Nazi Germany persecuted Christians including Geertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer, André and Magda Trocmé, Cornelia ten Boom, Sister Anna Borkowska, Clement Sheptytsky, Ona Šimaitė, the Skobtsova family, Irena Sendler, Józef and Wiktoria Ulma, and Maria Kotarba.
• North Korea: The North Korean famine coupled with executions and the Korean War killed 5 million, and North Korea continues executing Christians today. [35] North Korea has declared its official state religion to be atheism and is openly socialist.
• Khmer Rouge: 2 million died during the Cambodian genocide. Like the other governments mentioned, this was a Marxist/socialism-based government that was openly anti-religious.
• 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia: 1-2 million died from famine and abuse under another openly secular, socialist government.

My point is just that, given all the damage done by Marxist governments in the 20th century, I'm not convinced concerns about the state-ownership ideology known as Socialism/Marxism are overblown. Hundreds of millions died in under a century from this secular ideology, and for all the criticism religion gets, it's never racked up those kinds of death tolls so rapidly. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

'The German word for Nazis literally translates as "National Socialist Party"'. And with that demonstration of monumentally clueless drivel, you demolish your entire argument. Not that your argument has any relevance whatsoever regarding Wikipedia coverage of 'cultural Marxism'. I suggest you go away, seek an education, and come back when you know what the hell you are talking about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Which it does, per the Wikipedia page on Nazism. It was originally founded as the German Workers Party and the scientific basis for Aryan racism was in large part due to Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, who originated biology's tree of life. But of course I'm sure you'd assert there are plenty of right-wing, pro-labor, eugenicist, socialist parties out there. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your inability to distinguish content from label doesn't alter the undeniable historical fact that amongst Hitler's victims were many thousands of socialists, communists and trade unionists. Or the fact that he was put into power by right-wing anti-democratic industrialists and businessmen. Or the fact that no credible academic historian attaches the slightest bit of weight to the facile claim that having 'socialist' in the party name made the Nazis anything but the right-wing nationalist thugs they clearly were. Not that I expect you to understand such subtleties, since you appear to be blaming the Nazis for WWI. And as far as I'm aware, Darwin was never either a Marxist, a socialist, or anything remotely relevant to a discussion on'cultural Marxism'. If you are going to use Jimbo's page for propaganda, at least make an attempt not to make such a complete fool of yourself next time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Germany has long been one of the most secular, far-left countries on the planet, and remains so today. See Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Herbert Marcuse, Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Julius Wellhausen, Ernst Haeckel, G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Lowith, Baron d'Holbach, Hermann Gunkel, Rudolf von Bennigsen, Bruno Bauer, and Luise Kahler among others.

Also, which right-wing businessmen would you name? Alfred Hugenberg for example, was one of the wealthy businessmen who backed the Nazi Party early on, but he was hardly right-wing, and was a member of the National Liberal Party (Germany) and the leader of the German National People's Party.--7157.118.25a (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

From our article: "The German National People's Party (German: Deutschnationale Volkspartei, DNVP) was a national conservative party in Germany during the time of the Weimar Republic. Before the rise of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) it was the major conservative and nationalist party in Weimar Germany". Of course, if our article has got it all wrong, feel free to provide the sources to correct it. And I'm still waiting for your explanation for how the Nazis were responsible for WWI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And from the article National_Liberal_Party_(Germany), "The National Liberal Party (German: Nationalliberale Partei) was a liberal political party of the German Empire, which flourished between 1867 and 1918." Hugenberg was a member of both parties. As for the DNVP, it was also described as "antirepublican"[36][37] and perhaps is being overly characterized as right-wing due to its emphasis on patriotism? The Soviet Union also practiced patriotism though as well, but was hardly right-wing. Either way though, Hugenberg would not fit easily into a definition of right-wing given his membership in a far-left party, the National Liberal Party.

As for World War I, that did of course start before the Nazi Party itself, but the same secular German culture existed that was responsible for World War II, a culture heavily influenced by Marx, Nietzsche, and others as previously mentioned. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, having 'liberal' in the title makes them 'far left'! What a wonderful world you live in, where everything is simple, and mere facts can't get in your way.

Please stay away from Wikipedia content on history and politics though, we have a responsibility to our readers not to feed them complete bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia already describes the National_Liberal_Party_(Germany) as liberal, as previously mentioned, and it appears to have strongly supported socialism at the time. National liberalism which the party was based on is hardly right-wing. There are many left-wing businessmen today, for example Warren Buffett, George Soros, Paul Allen, Jeff Bezos, Anne Cox Chambers, Jeffrey Immelt, etc. That doesn't change the fact of their political allegiances. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what the word 'liberal' means? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Liberals and socialists despise each-other, and have nothing in common. Marxism was born to destroy liberalism. Marxism was a reaction to the rising dominance of liberalism in the 19th century. It is a sad day when such basic principles are being obscured. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Shhh - don't give the game away. This is getting to be fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Liberalism includes Social liberalism of which socialism is a facet, although liberalism also includes Classical liberalism which is similar to Anarcho capitalism. Both share some similarity in that they oppose moral absolutes that would restrict harming the rights of others, per Moral relativism. One focuses more on avoiding absolutes on social issues though, and the other on economic issues. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And off we go again. 'Social liberalism' includes the word 'social' so it is socialist! What a wonderful world you live in. So secure, and so detached from the slightest acquaintance with fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Social liberalism" has nothing to do with Marx or "socialism". Anything that accepts the principle of individualism is antithetical to socialism and Marx. RGloucester — ☎ 05:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In the United States, liberalism includes social liberalism. See Modern liberalism in the United_States. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Possibly true. Definitely irrelevant. You were trying to explain how the Nazis were socialists (when you weren't blaming them for WWI). Are you now trying to suggest that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei were actually operating in the United States rather then Germany? Even as historical revisionism, that seems a little overstretched... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Social liberalism" posits "liberty (latinate) or freedom (germanic) of the individual" as important for creating an equal society (see State of nature#John Locke), whereas "socialism" does no such thing. RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's say the World War I statistics can be thrown out. That still leaves around 244-353 million casualties from the Socialism/Marxism approach. And the Nazis were socialists, they called themselves socialists.[38] --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is idiocy incarnate, so I'll retreat. Even I know that this is a fruitless and pointless exercise, and that's saying something. Please, Mr IP, take your delusional WP:OR elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 06:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fruitless? On the contrary, bananas from start to finish. And while I doubt that even a semblance of clue has rubbed off on comrade 7157.118.25a, it has kept me entertained for an hour or two, and maybe encouraged future Jimbo-talk-spammers to do a little more research before filling the page with rants about Wikipedia being biased because it is full of factual content. AndyTheGrump (talk)

As pointed out by Jonah Goldberg in the aforementioned National Review article, Gregor Strasser, a ranking Nazi, stated:

"We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!"[39]

Trying to write off the clear identification of the Nazi Party as socialist, despite their anti-capitalist rhetoric, comes across as moving the goalposts. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler by the way is on record as speaking similarly according to Wikiquote.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Adolf Hitler, In a speech (1 May 1927), as quoted in Adolf Hitler : The Definitive Biography (1976) by John Toland[40]

--7157.118.25a (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And we know what Hitler did to Gregor Strasser and his allies, don't we? Sure, there was a faction in the early Nazi party that used leftist rhetoric, and Hitler did the same occasionally in the early days, but the fact is that the party that Hugenberg and company put in place was pro-business, nationalist, and ideologically committed to the elimination by force of anyone and everyone on the German left. The only elements of the 'capitalist system' that this bunch of right-wing populist thugs ever 'destroyed' were those owned by their other ideological enemies. Though of course they didn't destroy them either, just ensure that they fell into the hands of their benefactors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Only because of a failed coup on Strasser's part, it doesn't appear that was necessarily due to political differences so much as Strasser's quest for power. You do have a point that Hugenberg was pro business though, given his media empire which included several film corporations and many newspapers/publishing companies (there is a good summary of them here on pg. 174). However, you don't seem entirely correct that Hugenburg's group did not oppose any elements of the capitalist system, since they actually opposed the Dawes Plan to bail out Germany's banks and argued against the "populist rule of big capital." --7157.118.25a (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The DNVP opposed more or less everything at that point in time. That was what their politics were about. They wanted the Republic to collapse, and sought its replacement by a right-wing authoritarian regime. And of course, being the nationalist ideologues they were, the idea that foreign bankers might bail out the German economy didn't exactly appeal to them. And again, this is the mid 1920's you are referring to - when after the hyperinflation of 1923, everyone was engaging in populist rhetoric against 'big capital'. Which for those on the German right, meant finance capital - and we all know who the German right thought were running that. Cherry-picking odd incidents from the 1920s to 'prove' that Hitler's rise to power in the 19030s wasn't deliberately engineered by influential figures within the business community reeks of desperation, and runs contrary to demonstrable historical fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness though, opposition to a bank bailout wouldn't make them necessarily less conservative, since the Republican Party here in the U.S. likewise opposed the 2008 bank bailouts, with over half of all Republicans in the House voting against the bailouts. So I am having to acknowledge Hugenberg himself was more to the right than I'd realized. Nonetheless, Hitler and ranking Nazis still appear to have been decidedly socialist and anti-capitalist given their statements. --7157.118.25a (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It is possible - particularly in the early days - to pick out 'anti-capitalist' rhetoric amongst the Nazi leadership. But the facts are that came to power through the intervention of big business, and (other than starting a war they couldn't win which ultimately destroyed it) did little to reduce the power or influence of those that put them there. And understanding the 'anti-capitalist' rhetoric requires an understanding of what, and who, they were referring to. Their ideology was built around a central theme - that the world was run by Jews, against the interests of the German volk. To them international capital and international Bolshevism were two sides of the same coin, and their opposition to 'capitalism' was based on their warped antisemitic worldview, rather than on any critique of capitalism itself. They need to be judged on what they did, rather than on decontextuallised soundbites selected for partisan purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The controversial Hugenberg notwithstanding, the Nazis themselves identified as a socialist party[41] and practiced socialist, big-government regulations. The Nazis were not just content with a minimum wage but set industry-specific maximum wages as well to tightly control employee wages.[42] Minimum wages in general were raised.[43] The Nazis created a public welfare system which included care for the disabled and a retirement system.[44] Its Labour Front, a massive conglomeration of trade unions,[45] and Labour Court emphasized representation of German workers.[46] Large amounts of regulation were passed governing all aspects of labor relations.[47]

The Nazis furthermore practiced nationalization of industry, state control of business, under a policy called Gleichschaltung. Universum Film AG is an example of a company affected at the time, which by the way was purchased by Hugenberg. The ultimate end was complete control of all aspects of society through government, and elimination of all competition. Private property was allowed only under strict state supervision.[48] Massive public works programs were instituted, as was subsidized housing for poor workers.[49]

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi head of propaganda, published the following: "We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state. Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. "[50]

Whether you look at the Nazis' words or their deeds, the party was most definitely socialist. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to take the words of credible historians rather than that of someone who systematically misrepresents sources in order to promote an agenda. As with everyone else pushing this pseudohistorical nonsense, you base your definitions of 'left' and 'right' not on any criteria seen as relevant at the time, nor on any objective definition. Instead, you compare (via cherry-picking with the express objective of 'proving' your prior prejudices) the Nazis with the narrow obsessions on the contemporary U.S. right wing, and unsurprisingly discover that the Nazis weren't following the same agenda. That, quite frankly is bunk. The Nazis were nationalistic, authoritarian, and ideologically committed to the same agenda that other parties of the right were at the time. They weren't socialists. They murdered socialists. Nobody called them left wing at the time, and only right-wingers who prefer not to accept the realities of history do so now. Anyway, none of this has the slightest relevance to Wikipedia content, and accordingly I see no reason why I should continue with this discussion. If you want to promote this hogwash, start a blog somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me for being a bit postmodern, but the problem here is this American obsession with boxing everything into a narrow left-right continuum that simply doesn't exist in reality or adequately represent historical contexts. Obsessing over whether Nazis were "right wing" or "left wing" is pointless. The essential point is that they murdered millions of people, and their only real ideology was one of power. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To Andy, considering I just cited multiple historians, your claim of preferring the words of historians seems an odd claim to make. Concerning your argument that the Nazis couldn't be socialists because "they murdered socialists" that argument was addressed in the National Review article I referenced earlier. As pointed out by Jonah Goldberg, "when people say Hitler can’t be a socialist because he crushed independent labor unions and killed socialists, they need to explain why Stalin gets to be a socialist even though he did likewise."[51] The Nazis called themselves socialists, their very name includes the word socialist, and their policies were socialist. Attempts to write them off as un-socialist therefore strike me as historical revisionism. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not this slightest bit interested in how many historians you have cherry-picked to support conclusions they themselves have never drawn. You arguments are bogus, and they have been from start to finish. Find some other forum to troll... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In wrapping up this discussion I'll admit most historians do tend to label the Nazis to the right, but there are those who differ as well, Götz Aly is an example of a historian who strongly believes the Nazis were left-wing and socialist.[52] --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How about actually citing something where Aly actually says that, then? The fact that some on the German left went on to join the Nazis is well documented. It doesn't however make the Nazis left-wing any more than former Trotskyists becoming neocons makes the U.S. Republican Party a section of the Fourth International. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As seen on the book page I linked to (16), Aly states "Another source of the Nazi Party's popularity was its liberal borrowing from the intellectual tradition of the socialist left. Many of the men who would become the movement's leaders had been involved in communist and socialist circles in the waning years of the Weimar Republic."[53] Similarly on pg. 8, Aly observes that "It is necessary to focus on the socialist aspect of National Socialism, if only as a way of advancing beyond the usual projections of blame onto specific individuals and groups-most often the delusional, possibly insane Fuhrer but also the cabal of racist ideologues or the members of a particular class, like bankers and business tycoons, or certain Wehrmacht generals or the elite killing units."[54]

I should also mention the interesting conclusions drawn by Penn State historian L. Larry Liu whose paper I referenced earlier. Liu observes on pg. 2 that "I can find evidence for both the political-determinist and the economic-determinist explanations. The Nazis did carry out state-led policies that in many ways bypassed traditional market mechanisms. The Nazis imposed price controls whenever needed... On the other hand, the economic-determinists are right to argue that while the Nazi regime had political elements that were peculiar to a fascist-totalitarian regime, there were plenty of opportunities for the industrialists to benefit from Nazi economic policies... Most importantly, the Nazi regime had no interest in overthrowing the private property of industrialists."[55]

On pg. 5 Liu states "Hitler's own personal views on the economy was a contradictory mixture of socialism and the protection of private property" observing that Hitler spoke in support of both. Liu then draws the conclusion that "Hitler was overall not very serious with socialist principles, because he did believe in private property, though only under strict state supervision." Because the Nazis did allow a form of private enterprise, despite its strict regulation by the state, Liu then concludes that "the Nazis did not have a clear economic philosophy. It was neither mercantilist, nor liberal, nor socialist. Its overall goal had been the creation of a strong war machinery with which to conquer large parts of Europe, and the establishmentof a German empire."

--7157.118.25a (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Again you cherry-pick Aly. I could do the same if I was inclined to demonstrate that Nazi Party ideology was predicated on opportunist theft and corruption, and that they would say whatever suited their immediate interests, whether they believed it or not. That again would be a gross oversimplification though. Aly notes the 'socialist' elements of Nazi rhetoric - but he also documents the entirely non-socialist actions they carried out (i.e. the systematic looting of every country they occupied - the only thing that kept their economy going). And as for Liu, you seem to be quoting him for saying that the Nazis weren't socialist. Which they weren't - their objectives were empire-building, theft, and the elimination of their ideological and 'racial' enemies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not quote Aly on that then? Aly seemed to be clearly saying the Nazis were socialist and influenced by the "intellectual left." He also quotes the Nazi Party platform on pg. 32, which said "With respect to the enormous sacrifice of life and property that every war demands of the populace, wartime profiteering must be considered a crime against the people. We therefore demand that all profits from war, without exception, be confiscated."[56] I don't see where Aly terms any Nazi actions "non-socialist." You argue that looting of occupied countries is non-socialist, but actually, the Soviet Union engaged in such looting also. See Looted art#Looting by the Soviet Union.

I quoted Liu to provide an illustration of a historian with a complicated view since you wanted detail about what historians believe. Liu, it's true, did not believe the Nazis were socialist, but at the same time admitted Hitler held socialist views and was influenced by Gottfried Feder's anticapitalism. Personally I think Liu went a bit too far in concluding the Nazis weren't socialist just because they allowed a measure of state-controlled private enterprise, but Liu did do a good job of summarizing the schools of thought on the matter so I would be remiss if not covering his conclusions since I did cite his paper earlier. Just trying to be fair that's all. --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• At the risk of prolonging this food fight, I'll note that the Buchananites (to coin a useful and relatively non-offensive term for the right wing advocates of the theory of "Cultural Marxism") consider CM as a broad ideology underlying modern secular American society, in contrast and opposition to the ideology of "Traditionalism" — based on the ideas of God-given Rights, Family Values, and National Glory. It is cast as a conscious mechanism to implement that old 1960s John Birch Society bogey of creeping socialism. That they have traced the idea back to the rather obscure and largely unread writings of Antonio Gramsci (locked in a fascist prison) might strike the objective observer as a little bit nutty, but it is what they believe and we should be able to describe that system of beliefs in an encyclopedia article dispassionately, without rushing to claim in the lead that it is a "conspiracy theory." I'm not sure how we got to Adolf Hitler here, neither the Buchananites nor the socialist movement wants him as theirs. Anybody that has read more than a couple words of Mein Kampf knows that Hitler both hated the socialists and ripped off their ideas and repackaged them with an ultra-nationalist coating. Playing the neener neeener game with the Nazis isn't going to go anywhere — he was an object lesson in the dangers both of militarized state control of the economy and daily life and of ultra-nationalism. End of transmission. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To describe a theory of a Marxist conspiracy without calling it a conspiracy theory? Might be non-trivial! Guy (Help!) 00:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I find the theory very much coheres with the following section from the Conspiracy Theory article:

Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.

The broad goals in this case being Marxism everywhere in everything. The simple machinery is destabilization of society via anything the right side of politics doesn't like. The single organization being Cultural Marxists (as you yourself note, the Cultural Marxists are thought of as being conscious of this mechanism). So I personally am of the view that it's most definitely a conspiracy theory (and have stated my view most clearly in my own sandbox draft of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory). I have not seen any evidence to the contrary and will continue to believe that this to be a NPOV description of the theory until I'm shown evidence otherwise. --Jobrot (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have United Methodist Church cult as an NPOV title, do we? (Fill in whichever litigious "New Religious Movement" you deem applicable in lieu of the UMC, who aren't gonna sue me). Carrite (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but there's such a thing as a United Methodist, ergo they might sue... but I don't think any Cultural Marxists are about to sue. --Jobrot (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of legality, its a matter of describing things dispassionately. I might personally think that the Buchananites are rightwing crackpot crazyfucks with zero grasp of actual history or current popular culture, but I'm certainly capable of describing their belief system honestly and neutrally without trying to poke them in the eye or to make political hay. Any disciplined wikipedian should be capable of that. Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is POV phrasing, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay so now that you no longer appear to consider it a matter of overly-litigious groups, how do you explain these other titles (pokes in the eye):

• Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
• Chemtrail conspiracy theory
• 9/11 conspiracy theories
• Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory

....and for that matter how do you explain the current redirect being specifically aimed at a subsection of the Frankfurt School with the heading Conspiracy Theory... not to mention that the whole idea of Cultural Marxism is based around Marxists conspiring to extend their influence into all areas of Culture? It is literally a theory about a conspiracy! I don't know why you feel this is not a dispassionate NPOV description to use. Please, in all good faith tell me. --Jobrot (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Left has conspiracies too

"I might personally think that the Buchananites are rightwing crackpot crazyfucks with zero grasp of actual history or current popular culture, but I'm certainly capable of describing their belief system honestly and neutrally without trying to poke them in the eye or to make political hay."

You make it sound like the left has no conspiracy theories of their own. Leaving aside the 9/11 truthers, there have been the following:

• The Da Vinci Code conspiracies: Arguably the most historically inaccurate book to present itself otherwise, the author made a considerable number of major mistakes that have tricked large number of liberal adherents. There were not large numbers of gnostic gospels as claimed unless you count the forgeries by convicted felon Pierre Plantard. The Council of Nicea did not determine the canon. The number of windows in the Louvre is not 666 (as the museum has wryly pointed out).[57] Opus Dei does not have any monks. No record of a secret Knights Templar mission exists. The Old Testament has been in largely the same form as that seen today for over 2,000 years as seen from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Da Vinci Code presents many conspiracy theories that are accepted by those on the left as fact yet can't hold up to any degree of scrutiny.
• Mitch McConnell day one conspiracy: Another conspiracy theory on the left is the claim that McConnell and the GOP conspired from day one to make Obama a one-term president, which is a complete myth. It's been debunked by the Washington Post Fact Checker[58] and PolitiFact. McConnell did not make that statement at the start of 2009 as falsely claimed, but at the end of 2010, and even those words were taken out of context per articles by FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.[59][60]
• Obama caused Iraq troop withdrawal: Actually it was Bush in 2008 who signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement causing troops to withdraw. Obama on the other hand tried to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq past the Bush deadline but was refused by Iraq's government.[61] Newsweek accused Obama of a "war crime" for taking credit from the Bush administration for ending the Iraq War.[62]
• Defraud voters conspiracy: Another common conspiracy among the left is this idea there is no voter fraud, and the GOP just wants to suppress minority votes. In actuality plenty of voter fraud occurs. For example, the son and campaign manager of U.S. Rep. Jim Moran resigned in 2012 for supporting a voter fraud scheme.[63][64] Four Indiana Democrats have been charged with voter fraud for helping get Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot in Indiana in 2008.[65][66] Wendy Rosen was convicted in 2012 for voter fraud while running for the U.S. House.[67] State Rep. Stephen Smith plead guilty in 2012 to absentee ballot fraud.[68] State Rep. Hudson Hallum plead guilty in 2012 to voter fraud for using bribery to obtain votes.[69][70] The Chief of Staff for Florida State Rep. Joe Garcia resigned in 2013 for manipulating the 2012 election with hundreds of false absentee ballots.[71] In 2013 a poll worker was indicted for illegally voting over a half dozen times in an attempt to help Obama win.[72] Al Sharpton honored her when she finished her sentence.[73] James Webb Baker of Seattle plead guilty in 2014 to voter fraud for sending hundreds of fake letters to Florida GOP voters telling them not to vote or they would be arrested.[74][75] As of 2012 four of the eight officials accused of voter fraud had plead guilty to absentee ballot fraud.[76][77] On top of this, over 14% of the 11 million illegal immigrants are registered to vote and 6.4% likely voted in 2008.[78][79]
• Bill Clinton squandered surplus conspiracy: The left tends to view Bill Clinton as a brilliant economist who created a surplus that those nasty conservatives under George W. Bush squandered. Trouble is, that surplus occurred due to Clinton's Republican Congress refusing to let him spend recklessly. In actuality conflict between the Republican Congress of 1995-2000 and Bill Clinton led to the United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 96. Bill Clinton wanted to spend more and it was the GOP Congress that wouldn't let him.[80]
• Westboro as right-wing: Westboro gets regularly used to attack the Religious right even though Westboro's founder Fred Phelps has run for office as a Democrat six times (1990, 94, 98 Governor of Kansas, 1992 for U.S. Senate, 1993 and 97 for Topeka Mayor). Al Gore's 1988 campaign was even quartered on Westboro's church grounds resulting in Fred Phelps Jr. being invited to the 1988 Democratic National Convention as a delegate.[81][82][83]

I could keep going, but my point is that the left has plenty of conspiracy theories of their own that are easily debunked from historical analysis. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You seriously think that The Da Vinci Code is a left-wing conspiracy theory? As opposed to a 'I could write complete bollocks in a book and the punters would buy it' conspiracy? I'd have to suggest that the latter seems more likely - free market economics at work. Maybe you should try the same. A book on how the Nazis started WWI might sell quite well... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code is more like a collage of left-wing conspiracy theories, and the claims made in it are rehashed by the left about as often as the birther claims are by the right. Point taken about the value of writing a book though, already have one ready for publication actually. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On what planet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea that the Old Testament evolved like a game of telephone gets brought up very regularly, as does the claim that there were hundreds of gnostic gospels. Neither is at all defensible, the myths were complete fabrications by Dan Brown. They do seem to be somewhat less commonplace than in previous years however, given the documentaries debunking Dan Brown since then. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting conspiracy to mention is the UFOs seeded life on earth conspiracy, which has even been proposed by Richard Dawkins. It's actually a form of intelligent design ironically, and doesn't solve the problem of where the aliens came from. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we know that Dan Brown made up all the nonsense he didn't 'borrow' from other authors. What I'd like to know is how this is supposed to have any connection with left-wing politics. Or right-wing politics. Or politics. Likewise UFOs. It seems to me that you see anything you personally don't agree with as some sort of plot. There is a word for that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And come to think of it, there is a very good article on the subject. Essential reading: [84]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Dan Brown conspiracies are used specifically as an attack on the Religious right by the Secular left (and the left is secular[85][86]). The UFO conspiracies are specific to the left also, not the right. --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No they aren't. Except in your imagination. Have you read Hofstadter's essay? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I just browsed through the first few pages. What about it? There is fearmongering on both sides unfortunately. The left would have everyone believe the conservatives are a group of big money bankers even though Obama got more money from the wealthy than his opponents in 2012 and 2008[87][88][89], most House Republicans voted against the bank bailouts, and many of the top tax-dodging CEOs are part of the Obama administration (e.g. Immelt, Mulalley, McNerney, Akerson, Corbat, Liveris, Cote).[90][91][92]

The left also tries to pin the spending binge the last two years of Bush on Republicans, even though Democrats ran Congress the last 2 years of Bush[93] and passed hundreds of billions of dollars in spending over his vetoes.[94][95][96] Not to mention the fact that Bush only passed the remaining bank bailout funds[97][98], auto bailouts[99], and stimulus at Obama's request.[100] --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, the belief that Democrats are 'left-wing' seems to be quite common in the United States, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the Democrats' credentials as left-wing can really be called into question. They are so pro-choice that they even oppose the 20-week abortion ban which 71% of American women support.[101] Democrats support the gay rights movement and hate crimes laws used to sue Christian photographers that don't want to photograph gay weddings or cake manufacturers that don't want to create cakes with same sex imagery.[102] Democrats are on the opposite side of Republicans when it comes to global warming, school choice/vouchers, and teaching evolution as fact in public schools. Democrats support increased big government spending/regulation. All of those seemingly distinguish Democrats as clearly left-wing, not right-wing. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No. It merely demonstrates that they are marginally less right-wing than the Republicans. And marginally less inclined to ignore the U.S. constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Constitution does not mention "Separation of church and state", the phrase originates from Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Baptists, who were being jailed under Virginia law. Separation of church and state was originated by Madison and Jefferson as a way to stop the jailing of the Baptists and others[103] at a time when U.S. states were run by state churches, the Anglican Church for example ran Virginia and only Anglicans could run for public office.[104][105] I recently covered this extensively when writing the page Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is another good early piece of legislation on religious freedom. I suppose you could argue the 1st Amendment mentions separation of church and state in a way, by forbidding any "establishment of religion" but since it also protects the "free exercise thereof" the case is debatable. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So are you in favour of restricting public office to Anglicans, or against it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm against it. While founding fathers like William Penn and Roger Williams did make great strides when it came to religious freedom by allowing religious freedom to all theists, many states continued to restrict running for public office and voting to Christians exclusively into the 1780s until the No Religious Test Clause of the Constitution was created. While the changes by Penn and Williams were a major stride in allowing religious freedom, I think it's good that freedom was expanded to other groups as well. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So you can support at least one left-wing cause then. That's a relief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I view that position as right-wing actually. I disagree with establishing any denomination or religion as the law of the land per Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, but also support freedom of religious expression apart from that, which I view the left as opposing. I do hold some left-wing views when it comes to the death penalty (too many innocent people on death row), foreign policy (I lean towards non-interventionism), public works, and business regulation (since I oppose invisible hand and trickle down). I like the concept of direct democracy also. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So, which right-wing website did you copy the list of "voter fraud" links from? And did you deliberately ignore the fact that every one of those instances misses the point, or did you just trust the website when they did it?

The objection from the (mythically monolithic) "Left" isn't that there are no irregularities during elections. Rather, the argument is that in-person voter fraud – that is, individuals who go to polling places, and cast ballots pretending to be someone else – is essentially a non-problem. This (nigh-on hypothetical) "threat" of in-person voter fraud has been dramatically overstated in order to enact voter ID laws which principally inconvenience and disenfranchise groups (especially minorities and the working poor) who predominantly vote Democrat.

Fundamentally, trying to steal an election through in-person voter fraud isn't likely to ever be a serious problem, just because it's inherently a stupid and grossly inefficient way to do it. One person, with a stack of fake IDs (or a stack of affidavits, or what have you) and willing to stand in line at one polling place after another might be able to cast a dozen or two ballots over the course of a full day of fraud—and risks being noticed by election or campaign workers at multiple sites. It's labor-intensive and prone to failure. Since 2000, there have been something like 31 cases of in-person voter fraud in the United States, out of more than a billion ballots cast: [106]. (And some of those cases probably represent clerical errors rather than actual impersonations.) There has never been a credible assertion that the outcome of a U.S. election has ever been altered by in-person voter fraud.

Your examples actually make the "Left's" point. The 'successful' attempts you linked to all highlight much more effective ways to manipulate an election's outcome: bribe a bunch of people; fill out a bunch of absentee ballots, (where there's no time or in-person constraints or ID-checking); get election workers to stuff ballots or manipulate vote counts; send threatening letters to discourage legitimate voters from showing up; etc. When election outcomes are illegally manipulated, those are the methods of choice—not in-person voter fraud. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll call TenOfAllTrades Washington Post link with a Wall Street Journal one. Isn't it cool how one can always find numbers to match one's opinion? Not sure what this has to do with Mr. Wales or Wikipedia, by the way. NE Ent 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

To TenofAllTrades, there are nearly 200 different cases of voter fraud as catalogued by the RNLA, the ones I mentioned are just the more prominent and undeniable examples.[107] There are more examples here if you'd prefer an alternate source.[108] In person voter fraud is not likely to sway an election though unless committed on a broad scale like with the 700,000 illegal immigrants registered to vote. The 2008 ACORN Scandal led to 18 convictions of course, that would be another case of broad voter fraud.[109][110] Absentee ballot fraud is typically more dangerous.[111]

A notable recent example would be the election of Al Franken in 2009, who gave the Democrats their 7-month Supermajority allowing them to pass any legislation they wanted without any Republican votes from July 2009-February 2010. Franken won by producing large numbers of mysterious absentee ballots after the elections ended to gain a narrow win.[112][113] Recently State Rep. Christine Ayala was arrested on charges of voter fraud.[114] There are plenty of other examples though.

Also, if you think I plagiarized that from a website, then specify where. That's all my own writing. Vague accusations prove nothing. --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Being arrested for something doesn't prove guilt for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

True. Perhaps as an alternate recent example you'd prefer the case of Roderick Wright, who was sentenced in September 2014 for voter fraud and perjury? Two other California State Senators, Leland Yee and Ronald Calderon, are likewise facing charges, but have pleaded not guilty.[115] --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. Whether the not-quite-as-right-wing-as-the-Republicans-but-that-isn't-saying-much Democratic Party engages in electoral fraud or not is of little relevance to a discussion on actual left-wing politics. Assuming we are still discussing left-wing politics, rather than whether Dan Brown arrived on a UFO to poison our precious bodily fluids with fluoride... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please can we have some more about The Da Vinci Code as a conspiracy theory. I was enjoying that bit. I think a similar case can be made for Toy Story 3. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Toy Story 3 is obviously a political allegory. Two American archetypes (the cowboy and the astronaut), disquieted by their encroaching obsolescence in their ruthlessly utilitarian capitalist homeland, search for alternatives and encounter the horrors of a Soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship (run by an anthropomorphized teddy bear clearly intended to be an amalgam of Trotsky and Stalin). The teddy bear's promises of a Utopian society are quickly revealed to be empty and deceptive propaganda, and in reality the "Utopia" is even more exploitative than the ancien regime. The astronaut is temporarily brainwashed by radical-leftist propaganda, and even commits the unpardonably unpatriotic and elitist sin (for an American) of learning and speaking a foreign language. Ultimately, though, sanity and justice prevail, and the Soviet-style dictatorship in the day-care center is democratized by an infusion of fundamentally American values (represented by Barbie and Ken). Now, the secularized leftist media probably want you to think that Toy Story 3 is just animated entertainment for kids (with enough grown-up humor to keep parents interested). You sheeple are probably fooled, but the really smart and insightful thinkers like me and 7157.118.25a (talk · contribs) know the score. MastCell ^Talk 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd always assumed it was a gay love story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you're thinking of Brokeback Mountain. I get them mixed up too. MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain was clearly derived from Toy Story. I'm surprised they didn't sue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

They changed it quite a lot though. All they really kept was the two cowboy characters, a few letters of the title and the talking potato. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

An allegory? How can a documentary be an allegory? Formerip (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I can think of a few examples: The Sorrow and the Pity, for instance, or Buñuel's Land Without Bread. I think we're getting off-topic, though. We're supposed to be talking about how radical secular leftists steal elections and write lowbrow pseudo-historical potboilers. MastCell ^Talk 00:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

I thought Bush_v._Gore was a conspiracy, a 'stolen election." Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, that doesn't count. It doesn't even have subtitles. Formerip (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the left has conspiracy theories. For example, we believe that Fox News is a giant Republican propaganda machine ..., hires the noisiest and most obnoxious republicans and doesn't even pay lip service to normal journalistic standards.

This has precisely nothing to do with the status of the article on cultural marxism. But you knew that, right? Guy (Help!) 01:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's just a jump to the left...

Carrite's suggestion has merit: one reason the article is hopelessly confusing is that the technical content on the historical concept is nailed to a discussion of the almost entirely unrelated meme. I'm amused by the list of conspiracy theories above, given that there was mention earlier of G. Edward Griffin putting his oar in - Griffin seems to subscribe to all four of those conspiracy theories (and more), and yet we have people on the talk page seriously arguing that he is not a conspiracy theorist! Anyway, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory seems to me to be a reasonable way of teasing this out into something approaching a normal standard of Wikipedia coverage. I remain of the view that the only way to achieve meaningful progress on this is to send all previous partisans packing and let fresh eyes take it on. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On Griffin, the question is whether he should be described as a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence of the lead, which is absolutely one of the most glaring instances of POV in a BLP that you are gonna see. It is shameful and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I don't know that anybody has said more than that. As for the title, I do see Jobrot's point that since the Buchananites see so-called Cultural Marxism as a (left wing) conspiracy, a title of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory isn't entirely one-sided. But it does seem to me that this is another case of loading up the POV cannon for a "winning" salvo... Then again given the way that some Arbs are (not) handling the most blatant House POV violators in the Gamergate case, maybe I'm squawking about nothing and we should all accept that the concept of NPOV is not a thing worth defending. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, really? This is a man who is known for writing books and making films advocating not just one but half a dozen or more conspiracy theories. Truther, Birther, Chemtrailer, Fed conspiracy, the conclusions (though not the content) of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he also pumps laetrile (the must lucrative health fraud in US history according to one source) - basically the living embodiment of crank magnetism. What else are we supposed to call him? Guy (Help!) 19:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A "writer, filmmaker, and public speaker" is how I would describe somebody like that occupationally. There's plenty of time to get into details after the first line of the lead... Carrite (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

But he's not really known for doing those things. He's mainly known for appearing on TV and talking bollocks. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

First sentence is the nationality and job description. That's gotta be right. Carrite (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It all seems to depend on what else they've done in life. This seems to be a key factor in where the label is placed. Someone who is exclusively know for their theories or perpetuating theories seems to warrant having the label placed early in the article, Alex Jones (radio host) for instance (first sentence). Someone who has perhaps lived a former life (such as ex-soccer player David Icke) but now focuses their attentions and media role on such theories might have it placed a little later (second sentence). Someone who once held conspiratorial beliefs previously, but has changed them over time, might not have it mentioned at all (particularly if it's a BLP), for instance Joe Rogan. Joe once suspected the moon landings were fake and spread many of the common furfies and logical fallacies involved with this belief, but has since changed his views on the matter [116]). --Jobrot (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it could be considered a job description if that's what they devote their time and effort to.--Jobrot (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Slowness: Request for WMF Attention

A few days ago I posted a link to comments by one of the (English Wikipedia) arbitrators explaining why arbitration is slow, noting additional tasks that have fallen to the Arbitration Committee beyond its primary scope of dealing with conduct disputes. I requested that User:Jimbo Wales, as the face and public voice of the WMF, refer these concerns to the WMF. A few editors commented, but the thread was then archived by the archival robot. Here are the comments again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FGamerGate%2FProposed_decision&diff=642154916&oldid=642151661

User:Roger Davies identifies four additional responsibilities that have fallen by default on the ArbCom: off-wiki harassment; checkuser-oversight supervision; administrator abuse; and community ban appeals. Why is the ArbCom rather than the WMF involved in off-wiki harassment, which could have legal implications? Davies states that "the community has failed" to address the other three issues. My thought is that the community has failed to address those issues because the English Wikipedia community is too large, diverse, and fractious a group to be able to govern itself effectively, at least via consensus. If there is to be any sort of governance reform, the WMF will have to lead.

Hearing arbitration cases in panels of three arbitrators, with en banc rehearing only at the discretion of the ArbCom, would be one interim measure to speed up arbitration cases. Can the ArbCom implement such an approach itself, or would that require a change in its charter from the WMF?

Is the WMF looking into the burdens on the Arbitration Committee and the possibilities of some sort of governance reform?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, first off, Arbcom itself took on community ban appeals, without authorization from the community, some time in 2006 or 2007; despite the fact that the community itself has considerably beefed up the unblock options and processes, including creation of the UTRS system, Arbcom has chosen not to divest itself of it. This is a conscious decision on the part of the committee. Recently a member of the committee proposed a different regime that would still ultimately give Arbcom overall authority for requests, but was highly bureaucratic, and it was not accepted by the community. So...this one is a problem of Arbcom's own making, and the committee could easily just step aside here entirely and shut down its own program. I remember suggesting this as a member of the committee as far back as 2010, but there does seem to be some strong urge to keep it up amongst some members of the committee, for reasons I have never understood.

We have recently seen the WMF create a global ban process that seems to be addressing serious harassment issues. Indeed, in the last 24 hours several users have been globally banned as a result of this policy and process. Global bans make much more sense for users of this nature, because of the tendency to simply move to other projects if they get blocked on this one.

The Arbitration Committee could choose to divest itself of "supervision" of checkusers and oversighters and turn this over to the community. It would not surprise me if we see a community discussion focused on this in the not-too-distant future. The AUSC is a moribund subcommittee and has been for several years, and could easily be dissolved by motion.

Finally, Arbcom should not have any difficulty at all with the few administrator abuse requests that it gets to deal with each year; speaking from my own experience, these were almost always the easiest of cases, and often took no more than the short time required to get enough support (3 arbitrators) to initiate an "urgent" desysop, with a bit of followup afterward. Incidentally, dealing with administrator abuse/inappropriate actions was indeed one of the original purposes of the committee, and has been part of its portfolio since its inception. There has not been anything close to consensus from the community on an alternate process, although many administrators have created personal desysop criteria that remain in effect for them as individuals.

So much of this "heavy workload" that Roger speaks of is actually because of Arbcom's own actions and unwillingness to take the steps to divest itself of tasks that it does not want to carry out any longer. Risker (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well no, ArbCom handling community ban appeals has been part of the WP:BAN policy since the very start (May 2004). What started as a trickle is now approaching a couple of hundred a year.

If the global process does expand sufficiently to be a routine response to harassment that will be great, but the signs now are that it will reserved for the worst of the worst, and only after years of misconduct.

ArbCom should indeed turn CU/OS over to the community and I will support any appropriate initiative. That's been my position for years. Has it been yours?

"Admin abuse" has not an ArbCom responsibility since its inception and isn't even mentioned in the Jan 2005 version of policy. It kind of crept in by stealth later. This was formalised into yes/no requests to desysop in the current ArbPol but doesn't address the countless borderline issues (which usually come to us via backchannels).

If ArbCom has a fault in all this, it's a reluctance to jettison things and lob them into a void.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no void for block/ban appeals, Roger. In 2004, it was exceedingly rare that "experienced" accounts were blocked, and there wasn't an effective community process at that time for unblocking. (I need to note here that the majority of requests being received by Arcom are unblock requests, not ban reviews.) Since 2004, the community has created a very effective unblocking system. Administrators were always covered because anything to do with user behaviour was covered, including "administrator abuse"; it still remains the easiest thing on Arbcom's plate.

Way, way back in 2009, I envisioned that by 2011 the community would indeed be handling CU/OS elections by itself; however, as a committee (and yes, I was a member at that time, so I share in the responsibility) we made a fatal error in judgment by running elections through SecurePoll, a needlessly complex process that turned out to have only negative effects on community participation and was unsuccessful in electing people to do the job. We would have been much further ahead to have continued with the open elections, establishing a framework for election with the collaboration of the commuity that would have resulted in a situation similar to elections and reappointments for stewards. There was strong, strong resistance to the notion of the review/reappointment amongst both functionaries and arbitrators, however; in fact, we still see a weird resistance to removing tools from people who aren't using them. Indeed, I have always been of the impression that the biggest resistance from Arbcom for making the effort to divest itself of responsibility for CU/OS is that there would no longer be a justification for automatically granting arbitrators access to these tools.

As to all these backchannel mumblings about administrators, it would be very good for Arbcom to develop a spine and say "put it onwiki, bring it to us publicly; we're not dealing with this stuff otherwise" - and then stick to your guns. If it doesn't directly involve privacy (e.g., checkuser evidence that an admin is abusively socking), there's no reason to permit Arbcom's mailing lists to be a gossip retention centre. That issue I did try to deal with and received absolutely no support from my colleagues. Risker (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, lobbing things into the void is one of the hardest things to do, especially in a volunteer organization. The temptation is to step in and do what needs to be done. It's well meant but ultimately not fair either to yourself or to the community that you serve. Make it clear to the community, or WMF, or whoever, that if they don't take care of topic X then it's not going to be done. And stick to it. The most obvious example is that the committee has no business handling the "icky pedophile stuff" that one arb mentioned a while ago. Pass that straight to WMF who have the legal staff and other capabilities necessary to deal with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

While we are being more tactful than just telling the Foundation to just "deal with it", we are working to hand over things to the Foundation where that is (what we believe to be) the right thing to do. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. First, I agree with User:Risker that the ArbCom should prioritize its work, and should give the highest priority to the task for which they were elected by the community, the resolution of conduct disputes. I see that the WMF has recently been occasionally imposing global bans. I agree with Risker about administrator abuse. It is not so much that "the community has failed" to establish a procedure, as that there is a working procedure, arbitration, for desysopping. (Some editors do want some method of community recall, but that is proposed, not actual.)

I would nonetheless appreciate a statement from Jimbo Wales as to whether the WMF may address ArbCom-related issues in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon The committee's formal scope is considerably wider than just hearing cases and cases aren't prioritised in policy. So, while we do prioritise cases, we can't do so at he expense of everything else.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to binding resolution of editor conflict. the review of administrator abuse is also a Top Priority task of ArbCom — it is the only control mechanism that exists for the elimination of tool abuse. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It is true that administrator abuse is a priority task for ArbCom, but I don't understand why it is listed as a separate task that takes time away from arbitration. Is there some mechanism behind the scenes by which the ArbCom is asked to deal with administrator abuse? The list given by User:Roger Davies purported to be of tasks done behind the scenes that slowed down the handling of cases. I have seen multiple regular cases dealing with administrator abuse. One was recently closed, and one is open. They are usually relatively quick. There is, in my view, a workable method for dealing with admin abuse; it is arbitration. If there is some way that the ArbCom deals with admin abuse behind the scenes, maybe they should explain what it is. Otherwise, listing of admin abuse as a separate task for ArbCom seems irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The WMF has an ongoing relationship with the Arbitration Committee, including regularly scheduled check-ins. During those meetings, we listen to (and hopefully, respond to) requests from the committee for assistance with matters. We've recently spent a great deal of time on issues related to child protection, for instance. We are loathe to take over the work of the committee without them raising an issue - that seems rather... wrong. And none of the issues that you list have, to my recollection, been brought to the attention of the WMF by the committee (with the exception of off-wiki harassment, which - as has already been pointed out - we are developing new tools and processes to address). Should the community wish the WMF to get involved, it would be appropriate to present that request first to the committee, and then to the WMF. You're certainly welcome to go through Jimmy for that (he is, after all, a sitting Board member) but I would suggest that you could also come directly to any member of the Community Advocacy staff (my team, a listing of which can be found at this page). If you don't know anyone there, feel free to email me and introduce yourself. You'll find that - despite the legend - I rarely bite. And if that's too big a chance, there's also Maggie, who is one of the nicest people you've ever met. We're here to help. We'll talk to you about what we can and can't do, and work with you to craft genuine solutions. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I see a list of people who have various roles with the WMF. Is there one of them with whom members of the community who have concerns about governance of the English Wikipedia may communicate? Also, is there a page that we can view periodically to see what the WMF is doing with respect to English Wikipedia governance? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just to touch on BASC in particular, we did have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014 last year. In that RFC there seemed to be fairly broad agreement to move BASC away from an officila arbcom thing, but we failed to achieve an consensus on what the new BASC would look like. I am only a few days away (hopefully) from being done with arbitration business and plan to begin constructing a second phase to help shape a new version of BASC. Or the community may decide to just be rid of it, some people in the first discussion favored that. Either way it seems likely that sometime this year BASC will be more or less off the committee's list of responsibilities. Having been a member of it for the past year I can tell you it really is an enourmous timesink. I personally feel it is still an important safety valve/last chance for long term blocked or banned users, but it does not a job that must be done by arbcom. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why the former committee refused to dissolve BASC altogether in light of Risker's second comment above, and why it should not happen now with the new committee. Risker's comment properly suggests that the committee took ban review work on in 2004 at a time when unblock requests were not being handled very well (particularly for experienced accounts), that unblocks are not an issue anymore for such accounts, and most of the requests received by BASC are unblock requests and not actual ban review requests. In those circumstances and if the community never actually asked for this subcommittee, it should be dissolved. Any personal view regarding keeping BASC as a safety valve or last chance is just that; a personal view. If you want to keep it in another form, raise it as a new proposal with the community; the committee getting rid of that work does not need to be contingent on some other proposal passing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In principle, you could just have ten times the number of Arbs and get ten times as much work done within some given time period. However, we insist to have one Committee and each active member has to participate in each case. Count Iblis (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for WMF POC

I see a list of people who have various roles with the WMF. Is there one of them with whom members of the community who have concerns about governance of the English Wikipedia may communicate? Also, is there a page that we can view periodically to see what the WMF is doing with respect to English Wikipedia governance? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A time for update?

Mr. Wales, on December 11, 2014 you said: "The first thing that I did upon returning to London was hire a human rights lawyer full-time to work for me for the next month on these issues. That may turn into a longer term thing, or it may not." You were talking about 500K you were awarded in early December 2014 by the United Arab Emirates. More than a month has passed. Could you please update Wikipedians on your progress? 60.13.74.196 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. We are nearly done with the filing documents to register the organization formally. We are engaging in a series of meetings and conversations with existing NGOs in this space as well as with activists who have been arrested and/or imprisoned for political speech, in order to better understand directly from the victim's perspective what gaps there are in current efforts in this area. We have been working as well on fundraising strategy as I'd like to multiply by many times the impact of this original funding. We have been working on setting up the website - boring I know, but these things do take time. As no actual money has been paid from the prize yet, there is currently only one full-time employee (CEO Orit Kopel, human rights lawyer). This does appear to be turning "into a longer term thing," though as I am getting encouraging support from various people and places.

In general, I don't expect to give regular updates here once the website launches- better to just read the news there. But I'm happy to answer questions here in the meantime.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving this information. Having contributed to M-E area on Wikipedia for nearly 10 years, I found this quite interesting, and I´m looking forward to that web-site. The lack of free speech is certainly a problem in the area. Any particular reason why Orit Kopel was hired as your human rights lawyer? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A comment of yours at Maastricht

Jimmy Wales: Understanding failure as a route to success

In response to a student's question you said,

The question is should we get it to a point or is there a reason to care about whether or not you're allowed to cite it. And in my opinion the answer is "no". I don't think we need to cite Wikipedia. I don't think it's a goal for Wikipedia to be a citable source.

It's not good or usual practice to cite an encyclopedia article in university work. True. And no one I know has a goal of changing that academic practice. But the student asked about raising the reliability of Wikipedia, not citing Wikipedia. He wants Wikipedia to be as reliable as his textbooks. Do you or your foundation's board have a goal to make Wikipedia a reliable source in topic areas well-covered by sound academic publications? If not, why not? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should be as high quality as possible - I have always said "Britannica or better". But we have to also recognize that our way of working means that we have very different strengths and weaknesses as compared to a traditional encyclopedia. My answer to such questions is always to raise awareness of the difference between quality and use in citations. The quality question is much more important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy. I'd be interested to hear an update on what you and your foundation are doing to improve the reliability of Wikipedia. Are you, for instance, measuring the reliability of particular topic areas? (Obviously, you'll need to measure whatever it is you are planning to improve.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually personally not aware of any specific work on measuring the reliability of particular topic areas, other than work that gets done from time to time by various academics. I don't actually think that spending a lot of money directly on such research would be particularly valuable. I think the Foundation should continue to improve the software above all else, and to measure things like community engagement and health - because without the community, improvements to quality aren't possible at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to know how well we're doing in terms of reliability, overall and in specific topic areas, and would appreciate it if you'd give some thought to your position on that. Does the remainder of your board share your view? Have you and your board instructed your ED not to invest in that kind of performance measurement? (Overall, the existing academic work on the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia's medical content is too poor to say anything useful about it.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: the January 2015 Wikimedia metrics meeting was entirely comprised of presentations on quality improvement initiatives, including some of the most amazing AI integration, leaving IBM Watson to shame. 216.3.171.19 (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks IP. That was one hour very well spent, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in quality improvement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least Jake pronounced my name right.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope Jimbo will comment but I also hope to hear thoughtful responses from a variety of editors. Here's my take: Wikipedia can't be both "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and "as reliable as a good textbook". It is the "anyone can edit" part, or rather that anyone can edit in good faith, in compliance with our policies and guidelines, that is both the foundation of our success and the reason that we cannot be a truly reliable source ourself. ClueBot may revert 90% of overt vandalism in a minute or two, but suppose someone looks at the article ten seconds after the vandalism? And what about subtle, sophisticated forms of vandalism, changing statistics and other factual assertions in a plausible but false way? That requires thousands of diligent editors, monitoring thousands of articles on their watch lists. If I am the only editor watching a certain article, and take a vacation, and somebody vandalizes that article while I am not paying attention, then who will notice? All we can do is strive for improved accuracy every day in every way, keeping the improvement of this great encyclopedia in the forefront of our minds at all times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are wrong Cullen. We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can edit live. If the best solution to our reliability problem involves locking an article and editing in WP:DRAFTS space or on the article's talk page, anyone can edit there - just not live, in article space. This distinction between "anyone can edit" and "anyone can edit live" is important. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If I am wrong, then I my error is in line with that of the WMF board and the consensus of most active editors, Anthonyhcole. Some articles should be semi-protected, and a few fully-protected, based on vandalism levels. How stringent or lenient such protection levels should be is a legitimate subject of debate. But requring the agreement of two or more editors on every single routine edit is a formula for the paralysis and collapse of the project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just picking you up on the assumption that "anyone can edit" means "anyone can edit live". We have semi-protection on Dengue fever and have done since this version passed expert review in Open Medicine last year. Once hard-working editors have improved an article to the point where it passes rigorous review by topic experts, I think full protection is appropriate, but I'm probably ahead of the game there. It's only the extremely high-quality articles, articles that have passed serious peer review, that I'm thinking of here, not the millions of unreliable articles we host. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection, which anyone with ten edits over four days can get around, does not guarantee stability of an article like Dengue fever. Any dedicated vandal could mess with it subtly, if so motivated. And if you propose to fully-protect articles long term based on "expert review" instead of persistent vandalism, then I predict forceful opposition to that notion. Good luck making your case for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Presently, Dengue fever is carefully watched by those who wrote it and others. Subtle vandalism and even well-meaning errors don't stand a chance. Would you oppose full protection (that is, only edits that have a demonstrated consensus go live) on articles that have passed rigorous, independent expert review, Cullen? The case for it is: offering readers something they can trust - knowledge as opposed to dubious assertions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in our protection policy, Anthonyhcole, that allows for "freezing" a Good Article or Featured Article in a state that experts like best, so I oppose any such page protection. Protection is to deter vandalism, edit warring and BLP violations, and to allow content disputes to be resolved on the talk page. It is not to stop editing on an article that some people see as "perfect". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Anthony's ideas--obviously we'll be talking about a small group of articles (the ones I wrote--well, maybe not all of those). But Cullen is right that there is considerable aversion against protection: even semi-protecting an FA that's on the front page already rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There are ways to manage that aspect - like peer checked versions which would be a practical requirement in a stable textbook-type release. It only makes sense that tools will be developed to meet the demands of Wikipedia's use. A highly polished and well-managed page can exceed any singular source in nuance, scope and depth, but Wikipedia as a citable source will continue to be the subject of concern by its ability to change, evolve or diminish in response to the actions by Wikipedia editors. Permanence only exists in specific revisions and that is why sources need that level of detail to even begin making meaningful citations of Wikipedia content. The accuracy and merits of the content in supported by such citation is another matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It is simple enough to add a "version time-stamp" and/or a permanent link when citing a Wikipedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of having experts certify, beginning to end, specific history revisions of an article. And I'm OK with the idea of making it very easy to call up the last certified revision of an article. That said, a medical article updated by an idiot who just read about a recall or safety warning on a medical product may be more valuable than one certified by experts a week before the notice was issued. And, inevitably, there will be conflict between groups of people who claim they are experts and the other is not; we will need to accommodate all rather freely, subject to only basic and impartial standards. I think we should not think of abandoning the idea of an up to date encyclopedia, nor give up on the fundamental crowdsourcing model. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No thank you. We are not Citizendium, and Wikipedia is never finished. Wikipedia grows so fast that an idea like pending changes on all articles and peer reviewing would slow the creation of quality articles to a bottleneck. Imagine a world where all articles are FA quality, but only a couple are created a day. KonveyorBelt 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No one here, certainly not me, is proposing semi-protection of all articles on Wikipedia. I don't know the reason behind the semi-protection of Dengue fever, it may be due to vandalism. But if you look at the talk page and editing history since the article passed expert review, it's developing nicely and very up to date. If we want experts to contribute to Wikipedia, and I do, they need to be confident their efforts won't be wantonly undone, and our readers deserve articles they can trust. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the key here is that certification needs to be independent of updating. I mean, on the talk page you can say "why mess with the text that was certified in revision #NNNN", but none of this protection stuff. Just let users have some easy alternate way to get to past certified versions. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the idea of an easy link to the expert-reviewed version. James has put a tiny little book symbol on the top right corner, linking to the reviewed version of Dengue fever. I would like to see a much more prominent link - a badge at the top telling the reader it is there, and maybe a link to the diff showing the difference between that version and the current version. But he and a few others did the hard work on that article and, really, it's their call, in my opinion.

I don't know what to think about protection. Jimmy mooted a year or so ago, here, putting pending changes on some articles with a class of expert reviewers permitted to approve revisions. Semi protection does force new editors to take it to the talk page where, if their proposed edit is useful, they do get a good hearing - so I see no harm in that. Full protection forces everybody to discuss changes and get agreement which, in the case of a Wikipedia article that is also a genuine WP:RS, I think is a good thing. But, while Category:Articles_published_in_peer-reviewed_literature has just one member, and that article is being carefully watched by those who took it through peer review, none of these measures is strictly necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have whipped up a quick template at user:Konveyor Belt/sandbox with a transclusion test at User:Konveyor Belt/sandbox2. The only thing I can't seem to do is get the link to work. If someone could go and try to fix it, that would be most appreciated. KonveyorBelt 18:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweet. Can you include a link to the diff between this version and the current version? Perhaps call the link "Compare the reviewed version with the current version". It would be nice if we could generate a diff excluding the markup. Your average punter is going to bounce right out of this. I've asked at the village pump if it's possible. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. KonveyorBelt 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's the kind of prominence I think it deserves. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in to highlight a couple strengths of Wikipedia. Today we are the only encyclopedia with an article on the coup d'état in Yemen. We can cover new topics with incredible nimbleness. Also today our featured article gamma ray burst was updated to include a new astronomical discovery, kilonovas. I doubt any astronomy textbooks include that info. Wikipedia may not be cite worthy in academics, but it is cited all the time in legal cases. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Academics actually do use Wikipedia, even if they don't end up citing it in journal articles. Sean M. Carroll wrote a few years ago that he was thinking about a problem about the cosmic background in some cafe and he needed the explicit expressions for some Spherical harmonics, which got from Wikipedia. So, Wikipedia's content does have real academic relevance, just like a calculator or a computer has. Count Iblis (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. One scientist told me he liked an article I wrote because it was a convenient collection of sources. He even gave some papers so I could add them. Others find it convenient to refer students and laypeople to WP for basic questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And that is precisely as it should be. Like the article on homeopathy, which collects all the major sources in one place. I use it all the time. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On keeping majorities from running amok

How to keep majorities from "running amok" is a key question in political theory, and no less applicable to Wikipedia. Though the discussion above started by Camelbinky quickly ran off the rails (amok?) and into a thicket of the usual WP nattering, yet I wonder if we might have a dispasionate discussion of a core issue.

The question is a core issue because even though WP is nominally not a democracy, yet it is broadly democratic, and determination of the WP:consensus that is supposed to be the prime criterion usually comes down to a vote. And the general rule is "majority wins". The problem is that there is no way of validating any vote as "not run amok", except by invoking a higher authority (like a larger majority), which might itself run amok.

At this point I expect someone to mention that we are supposed to be guided by consensus, etc. Right: supposed to be. But in the end all interpretation of consensus, etc., comes down to a vote, and the majority wins -- right, wrong, or amok.

(As a sub-issue I point that in any given context a majority might be only three or four editors. Out of the many possible combinations of selecting a panel of (say) five editors out of the three thousand or so most active editors it can be expected that with just ordinary variations and biases -- i.e., no crazies -- many of those panels will be skewed in some way, and might develop views that vary widely from the average. This is an interesting question in sampling theory, and more in line with the broad POV issues CamelBinky and others have raised, but is a bit short of the "run amok" issue I would discuss here.)

In the Wikipedia context "running amok" should be understood not in its original meaning of a sudden, wild assault (akin to the Viking berserker), but as a process or individuals out of control, or at least working in a decidedly undesired manner. A prime example of this is the subjugation of expert opinions or points-of-view by local majorities that opine otherwise. In this case it is highly relevant to examine how the sciences (e.g.) develop "more expert" views that are contrary to an entrenched majority view, and the role played by standards, conventions, and even traditions.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"it can be expected that with just ordinary variations and biases -- i.e., no crazies"

How do you define what is ordinary and non-crazy precisely? Be specific please. An exact methodology that is verifiable and repeatable would be preferable. Historically there is more danger from a minority trespassing on the rights of a majority than the other way around. Furthermore, given the hemorrhaging of Wikipedia editors in recent years the danger exists that large numbers of editors are being systematically removed from Wikipedia just because of their viewpoints. In other words, what is 'consensus' on Wikipedia may not be consensus among the broader public if editors are being removed based solely on their views. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We should replace Jimbo Wales with Noam Chomsky.MOMENTO (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

To take a strict statistical sampling view, "crazy" could be equated with extreme outliers, which can be identified as lying well beyond the overall distribution. In a social context "crazy" is often applied to people whose persistence in utterly and demonstrably false views (such as the possibility of perpetual motion) raises questions of their perception of objective reality. And in the context of WP discussions we can distinguish between editors that engage (metaphorically "dance") with other editors about the ideas being discussed from those who are not so engaged, who go running across the dance floor (as it were) on their own dubious tangents.

Whether majorities or minorities pose the greater danger to "rights" is quite irrelevant to the issue I propose, as the question is not one of "rights", but of how to ensure that decisions are reached on the basis of merit rather than mere numerical majority. The claim -- not a "given" -- that "large numbers of editors are being systematically removed from Wikipedia just because of their viewpoints" is also quite irrelevant. Do try to stay focused. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And how is it determined what an "extreme outlier" is, through comprehensive polling? Where is the cutoff? Views held by less than 10% of the public? 20%? Just trying to get an objective standard to work off of here that is not subjective, arbitrary, and open to personal speculation.

Similarly, how is it determined which views are "utterly and demonstrably false"? Is there a specific test under the scientific method which will produce consistent, repeatable, verifiable results in differentiating false views from true ones?

I do think that the issue of whether majorities or minorities are a greater risk is relevant. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom "to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own."

Historically there has been more danger from tyranny of a minority, dictatorships that oppress the majority of people, than from mob rule. Democracy has its faults but has led to more progress in a few centuries than thousands of years of dictatorship accomplished.

The whole reason I am harping on this issue of objective standards for determining what is and is not crazy because, when left to personal discretion, it is the tendency of human nature to discriminate against views one disagrees with. See false-consensus effect, people tend to assume their views are more popularly held than they are, which means there is extreme likelihood of making false judgments about what is and is not a "crazy" or "fringe" viewpoint. THAT is why it is so important for there to be an objective basis for evaluating what extreme outliers are, because human nature itself is prone to misjudging that. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)