Sisyphus Aeternal

Welcome

Hello, Sisyphus Aeternal, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are apparently here to defend Raimondo. You are lecturing and giving little pragmatic and constructive “help” other than your own biased POV above.

What is your political connection or affinity to Raimondo his politics?

Where are your thinly-veiled threats to a pure troll as per "17:52, 3 February 2007 75.35.223.130" -- Please show me.

Is this the Wiki gold standard? -- “"(cur) (last) 17:52, 3 February 2007 75.35.223.130 (Talk) (←Created page with 'You are Stephen Schwartz, "journalist." Hahahahaha')"

Which freak wrote this paranoid, demented bullshit …???

Was it you or someone else that deleted the links critical of Raimondo?

What was not Wiki about these? Simply plain, external links!?

With regard to the first quote (above) ":In 2005, Stephen Schwartz of the conservative FrontPage Magazine wrote a scathing column labelling Raimondo a "neo-fascist" and describing him as anti-democratic: "Almost as intense as his hatred for the Jewish state is Raimondo’s loathing of democracy. Some may have been taken aback by the volume of his bile when he denounced the 'orange revolution' in Ukraine as well as the current democratizing efforts in Lebanon."

This was originally and already edited and "tidied up" by some other editor. The source was provided, but apparently removed by an insecure Raimondo or his trolls.

If you had no political or personal affiliation with a nut like Raimondo, why did you not simply insert the reference yourself? as did a previous editor who was helpful in that regard.

I’m not a writer nor professional editor, you could have simply demonstrated by example, how this ought to be done rather than delete an already “tidied” paragraph. Again, this infers your bias, whilst you feign you have none, giving Raimondo a free pass and preferential treatment because you are politically, or personally aligned to him or his nutty ravings.

Given that you've expended so much volume defending him, you could have easily taken the supplied source, already supplied, in the "links" section. Yet, rather than help to “tidy” you again covered for Raimondo.

Your attitude is not helpful to a new editor such as myself.

This does little to inspire one with confidence that Wiki is an objective project.

After recently researching this nutter, I now would not claim to not have formulated an opinion that he is little more that a freakish, paranoid, conspiracy-driven crackpot.

Whilst I confess by private position, I abjure such to public objectivity. I have no problem with someone per se, even a tin-foil, conspiracy crank like Raimondo blowing his own sociopathic trumpet here.

My concern is the total one-sided, biased presentation, turning the entry into little more than a propaganda device for Raimondo’s crackpot ravings.

As a new member here I feel I am being intimidated by you and you are not an objective helpful source.

Due to your own obviously private bias and intimidation and veiled threats of my new membership; please direct me to where I can lodge a protest and/or complaint on this issue and request where or how I may find the assistance of entirely objective "help."

Thanks.

PS - I also request you re-instate the following since, as mentioned above, this was inserted and already "tidied" by another editor. The source was also provided.

"In 2005, Stephen Schwartz of the conservative FrontPage Magazine wrote a scathing column labelling Raimondo a "neo-fascist" and describing him as anti-democratic: "Almost as intense as his hatred for the Jewish state is Raimondo’s loathing of democracy. Some may have been taken aback by the volume of his bile when he denounced the 'orange revolution' in Ukraine as well as the current democratizing efforts in Lebanon." http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17310

Please avoid making personal attacks and try to assume good faith. If you would like to seek review by other Wikipedians, you should either request a Third Opinion or start the Requests for Comment (RfC) process. Please realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Everyone has their own personal biases--to claim otherwise would be a bit outlandish. I wear mine on my wiki-sleeve and hope that others will keep them in mind when reviewing my work for any non-compliance with WP:NPOV. DickClarkMises 13:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Justin Raimondo

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. DickClarkMises 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What do mean? Which edit? Who are you exactly? What is your political affiliation and why such concern and interest in a gnat-sized entry??

The critiques on the page keep being vandalised and deleted. Why?

It's a matter of principle that criticisms should be aired rather than Wiki turned into a crass politicised PR machine for this, (after now even more research) what turns out to be a very weird and abnormal individual indeed; otherwise, if balance is not permitted, due to its trolls continued deletions, surely the entry is best deleted then?

If some element needs to "tidied up" be more specific.

I'm not an author. One simply relays what has been already publicily commented on.

And what paranoid crank keeps making these crackpot remarks (below), if not someone typically characterised as a "troll" - one who apparently makes strange sociopathic vocalisations online?

"(cur) (last) 17:52, 3 February 2007 75.35.223.130 (Talk) (←Created page with 'You are Stephen Schwartz, "journalist." Hahahahaha')"

Please advise.

Sisyphus: For information on me personally, feel free to peruse my user page. Remember, though, that Wikipedia is not a battleground. All contributors, regardless of personal affinities, must follow Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV. The critiques of Raimondo to which you are referring are being repeatedly removed because they are clearly in violation of both the Neutral Point of View policy and WP:BLP. Wikipedia is certainly supposed to present various perspectives on a topic, and this includes notable criticisms. However, personal attacks or criticisms written in the encyclopedic voice are not tolerated. Below I am copying the criticism section that is at issue. See my intratextual annotations for my best explanation of why the deletions are appropriate:

In 2005, Stephen Schwartz of the conservative FrontPage Magazine wrote a scathing column labelling Raimondo a "neo-fascist" and describing him as anti-democratic: "Almost as intense as his hatred for the Jewish state is Raimondo’s loathing of democracy. Some may have been taken aback by the volume of his bile when he denounced the 'orange revolution' in Ukraine as well as the current democratizing efforts in Lebanon."

It would be best if there was a specific citation for the quote above. The quote is also a little lurid, but if properly sourced could probably stay in the article.

On Homosexuality, Raimondo’s critics claim he sends mixed politicised gender messages, especially to the active gay community.

Which critics? Where/when did they say this? Unattributed criticisms are not acceptable for Wikipedia use.

Raimondo is himself a practicing homosexual but sensationalises his own agenda and refers to even moderate advocates of gay rights, as fundamentalists.[1]

Which gay rights advocates are the "moderate" ones? According to who? Who says that Raimondo "sensationalises his own agenda"? Where/when did they say it?

In the broader commentarial community, according to political pundits and commentators, Raimondo's frenetic apologia often borders on the hysterical which tends to diminish his credibility as a voice of sound reason, factual reporting and rational commentary.

Again, who said this? Attributing it to some unknown "pundits and commentators" is not acceptable. Also, again we have the encyclopedic voice asserting that Raimondo's defenses are "frenetic," and bordering on the "hysterical," with various consequences pronounced. It is not acceptable to state this in the encyclopedic voice as though it were fact. This is a criticism that must be framed as such (and offered with the proper citations) in order to be included.

He has been accused of thinly veiled anti-Semitism and xenophobia and causing unneeded emotional stress to the ethnic American Jewish community with racist bait tactics. The ADL, a Jewish anti-hate watch group reported in a Letter to USA Today, that much of “Raimondo's argument reflects an age-old predilection to point the finger at Jews for nefarious plotting at world domination, for pursuing their own interests to the detriment of the rest of the world.”

Here, we would not want to use the word "reported" because that isn't exactly what is going on. The ADL may have asserted such things, but they are not pronouncing some iron-clad fact. They are offering a criticism based on their interpretation of Raimondo's actions/words, and this must be clear when a reader stumbles across this article.

The anti-hate watch group further determined that Raimondo's sensationalism represented a highly “twisted view.” [2]

Again, "determined" is too strong a word to use, because it sounds like the ADL discovered something indisputable rather than argued for a particular interpretation of Raimondo's work. This criticism, while perhaps notable, is a criticism and not some bit of decided scientific/historical fact.

He is often overcome by emotion and reveals the need to sensationalise and use deliberately devised, attention-seeking tabloid headlines, known in media trade as "yellow journalism."

Of the numerous examples one will suffice - the tabloid headline, again demonising a Jewish individual, entitled "A Jewish Hitler?" [3]

Who has notably criticized Raimondo for his headlines? Where can a reader find the source to confirm this? Is this original research? If so, it is not acceptable for Wikipedia purposes.

Another issue, of course, is that this just doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. It isn't formatted properly--too many paragraph breaks, etc. Any controversial subject matter discussed in Wikipedia articles should include coverage of the notable perspectives, including critical ones. It is important, though, that anyone editing Wikipedia be acquainted with the Neutral Point of View policy. This policy covers WP:Undue weight, Fairness of Tone, Characterizing Opinions of People's Work, and Attributing and Substantiating Biased Statements. I hope that offers some insight into the reasons for the constant reversions by other editors. Cheers, DickClarkMises 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)