User talk:Srich32977/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Apology and offer

Hi Rich. My realization that I violated a serious WP rule, in 3RR (for which I was warned), has compelled me to take a step back and think about my contributions to the Hoppe article. While I continue to disagree with you on substantive content-related matters on the Hoppe page such as the section title, the aforementioned realization and subsequent reflections have led me to the conclusion that over the last 24 hours, I expressed my disagreements with you on the Hoppe page in a shrill and impatient manner. I am sorry and hope we can move past this in future editing collaborations. I will be steering clear of the Hoppe article for at least a few days, but I do hope we can build a more agreeable editing relationship in the future. Best, Steeletrap Steeletrap (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And all the best back attcha! I've been at this WP stuff for a few years and I know it can get exasperating. You'll see my recently posted frustrated notice, which I upgraded to orange just yesterday. It is the first time I've posted such a notice. But with your most honorable comments in mind, I shall lower the level to a simple {{user frustrated}} format. (And hopefully remove it soon.) Yes, we do have disagreements, but they are not related to Hoppe's views. I've read only a tiny fraction of his stuff, so I can't opine on whether he is right or wrong, good or bad. But as an editor I don't need to read much. That is the job of people who are writing up Secondary material -- we simply use it to build our project. (But I am not developing much regard for him as I work on this stuff!)

I'll give you another example of where and why reading the Primary stuff is not needed. I see in the LvM article that he had some association with JBS. (That has been a group that I have a very low regard for.) Well, is that material supported by RS? At present I'm looking. But I saw that the JBS article had North as a "See also" link. So I ask myself what is the rationale for posting that link? (I did not recall seeing any such connection in other articles.) Well, nothing in North's article links him to JBS, so the link maybe an indirect (and unsupported) jab at North. Without a rationale the link is improper, so I removed it. Now will someone else come along & restore it? Perhaps, but they'd better have a justification for doing so. And if that article remains stable for a few days I will take it off my watch list.

Steeletrap, I hope that each time I've quoted policy and guidelines for you, it has been for a valid purpose and that the results are positive. Your response gives me great heart in that regard. Thank you, and here's a to go along with my best wishes. – S. Rich (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your citations of WP policy/guidelines really generally have helped my learning process, Rich. As has the personal study of policy I have been inspired to undergo by arguments with you. The North/JBS thing does seem like a jab (though "again whom"? is perhaps a good question, since neither JBS nor North has a particularly savory reputation :P) if the connection is not established as significant by RS; I will take a look later. Steeletrap (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You aren't really the subject of it, only mentioned, but better safe than sorry thought I'd tell you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

JBS issue

The issue wasn't just confined to an improper association of JBS with Gary North. Also listed under "See also" on the JBS page are R.J. Rushdoony, Dominion Theology, and the Chalcedon Foundation. I have studied both the JBS and Dominionism in an academic context, so I know more than a bit about their ideological and social norms. Put over-simplistically, Dominionist theology (also known as Christian Reconstructionism) is the view that Christians ought to work to construct a political order which upholds the Mosaic Law outlined in the Old Testatement (e.g., stoning gays and recalcitrant children to death); R.J. Rushdoony is probably the most important Dominionist "intellectual", who -- along with Gary North -- has written extensive (in my view, crackpot) works on political strategy, economics, history, and how they relate to the future of the Dominionist project; and the Chalcedon Foundation is thinktank Rushdoony founded to promulgate Dominionism/Reconstructionism.

Apart from also being a far-right fringe group, there does not appear to be any evidence JBS is associated with or endorses the ideas of any of the three aforementioned subjects. (Indeed, while it does tend to be populated by Christian fundamentalists, JBS -- in stark contrast to the "Dominionists" -- is willing to work with non-Christians and even irreligious people on behalf of "fighting the NWO", and what that mission may mean in the current political situation often has little or nothing to do with advancing a particular religious (Christian) idea.) Please look into this if you have a chance, as these edits may have been (as you say) baseless jibes. Steeletrap (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The stuff about Dominionism, X-ian reconstruct, Mosaic law, etc. is much too abstruse for me. Still I'd say your edits are well-founded. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mis-categorization

Hallo. Thanks for trying to fix the problem in User talk:Quiddity/How it Works. I did see the mis-categorization last night, and attempted to go about fixing it by checking the code in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Links - Much more complicated than usual! So I left it until later (now!).

It appears the template automatically adds the category if&onlyif the page otherwise has no categories. (I think? Hmm, nope, I tested adding it to Cat:User essays, but it still added the Wikiproject cat in addition). I have no idea how it's meant to work! That template isn't critical, I'll just add a manual link to the directory, instead.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks, and ask how you found the page? Are you using a tool/script/bot that watches for miscategorizations, or did you already have that page watchlisted? (Regardless, I hope you read and appreciated it ;)

Best wishes, –Quiddity (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

When you added a "|" in front of the template i thought you fixed it. So I posted a note on the talk page. Then you changed it back. THEN i realized this was an essay page, and saw that you have a regular page. (And now I see you have fixed it.) Once I had my morning coffee, all became clearer. How did I find the essay? It was listed on the category page for various WikiProjects. I was perusing it for different projects. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Civility thing

Hi rich. Your post on my wall accusing me of uncivility was mistaken; as such, I deleted it. I did revise the post to remove any language that could be construed as loaded, but no personal attack was made in the original. (I do not believe that describing a highly charged (and false) personal accusation as "nonsense" is "uncivil", but I have replaced this term with more vanilla language in hopes of placating you.) I continue to believe that the entry I added to the talk page serves as an important substantive contribution to the knowledge of editors, especially those new to the Hoppe page and the debates at the talk page which shape it, and should not be read as a jab. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Without looking at your revised remark, and in response to your talk page reply (deleted), I will say the original remark did come across as a jab. "Her charges have been found to be baseless at an ANI she filed ... [therefore what she says] should be assumed to be nonsense until proven otherwise." Bbb23 closed the ANI down because it was part of the bickering about the article, and said specifically that editors must treat each other with more respect. Your comment about nonsense was not complying with the admonition. Please focus article improvement and put your feelings about Carol aside. (Please note that I am not taking Carol's side on the BLP issue. And I oppose her Canvassing complaint about SPECIFICO.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User:Steeletrap. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. There is no personal attack in my remark on the Hoppe page. (Saying someone's beliefs are false is not the same as calling him or her a liar; is this seriously what you're claiming?) Making charges of PA based on no evidence are clearly PAs. (I would also add that your understanding of the BLP issue is false. First, if a charge of BLP violations is rejected, it can be inferred that the admin/editors who rejected it.) Second, literally every editor on the BLP debate explicitly asserted that Carol's claims are false/incorrect.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Even so, putting these observations and feelings and facts on an article talk page is inappropriate. They have nothing to do with article content, they do nothing to improve the article, they do no advance civil discussion between editors with regard to improving the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just your subjective judgment, particularly since those (false) charges of BLP were so instrumental in shaping the composition of the Hoppe page. Steeletrap (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Soto name and on fractional banking

• It seems to me in some source they kept calling him "Huerta de Soto" in ref to a last name. Also "de Soto" probably is used thusly. Is it worth it to check that out and change accordingly? Want to do it?? :-)
• Do you want to look into those refs I put up on the talk page about debates among libertarians on fractional reserve and expand the section or should I? It is an area of long interest to me (though I disagree with him on the fraud issue) but I'd be very happy to let you do it since trying to spend less time on Wikipedia. It's up to you. (Also, searching "review of" his most relevant book might bring up some good returns.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your copyedits to Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Thanks very much for your copyedits to the article I've recently created from scratch, at Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

I've retained the vast bulk of them and raised issue with some of them on the article's talk page at Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Hopefully they are just minor points but there are extra bits of information that I think are only helpful to the reader to retain and keep in the article rather than summary removal.

Perhaps we could engage in talk page discussion in the future before more removals of information from the article?

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much and sources query

Thanks very much for your helpful and polite contribution to talk page discussion at Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, much appreciated!

Do you perhaps happen to know of any other secondary sources or potential references not yet cited and incorporated into the article???

If you do, if you could suggest them on the talk page that would be most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hola !

The worldcat listing on Human Action Catalan edition states Soto wrote the preface. It lists the translator, but the translator is not Soto. Hasta etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In which case I shall change. – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If article text, which has adequate RS, is incorrect, then it should be revised. Removing sourced material with an inaccurate edit summary is not helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That goes without saying. The present example was fiction with a vaguely related citation which did not support the fictitious text. But you took lemons and made lemonade, all to the good. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Overlink v the educational purpose of wikilinks

Yes, you know what tax exempt status means and that Manhattan is a borough, and what that means, but not every reader is also going to know those things. Wikipedia is supposed to be educational. Taking out most of the links makes it hard for people who do not know what you know. --Abel (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SEAOFBLUE applies. We want to educate people about FEE and its contributors, not about geographical terminology or president, etc.. The tax status was changed only for better layout in the infobox. The article is already massively linked. – S. Rich (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the points of "general points on linking style" were violated. --Abel (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are my changes: [1]. The article now has a more reasonable level of linking -- focusing more on the authors. MOS:LINK warns about excessive linking. Again, as an example, president was linked, but the president article itself is about governmental presidents and has a small section about NGO presidents. Did we link president so that they could learn more about national presidents? No -- we want to encourage readers to learn more about FEE and the various contributors by linking those names. Readers who want to learn more about WWII etc, will use "Search" Too many links distract from the important stuff. Abel, you've created a Good Article. Don't fall victim to WP:OWN. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Am not disagreeing with president, vice-president, professor, author, or Atlanta. I am disagreeing with tax exempt, borough, estate, chairman, economist, Lawrence Reed, World War II, headquarters, acre, and resident. No one owns any Wikipedia article, that is kind of the point of the whole thing.--Abel (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reed is a triplicate. The residency article is a lousy one. Chairman is not much different than prez or VP. Other items are common English words. (I agree about relinking economist, and will do so shortly.) As for the rest, how about posting a WP:3O review? – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If Reed is already linked then yeah, no need to do so again. The residency article might not be good, but there is no reason to believe that it won't be better in the future. Also, a less than perfect explanation is still better than no explanation at all for people who have no idea what it means to be a resident, especially considering that this is one of the disambiguated terms. Most people have no earthly idea what an economist does, and the same goes for a chairman. At best you would get "someone important" with no real understanding of the position, although I will concede that this one is debatable. Tax exempt, borough, estate, headquarters, and acre might have been common English words at one time, but they are no longer. Just like I would expect anyone over 40 to immediately know what World War II was, but for others? Not so much. --Abel (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Soto

Greetings. My talk and edit comments tried to make clear that the existence of 7 volumes, which I retained, is not in doubt but the details and characterization of them is all OR and SYNTH. Please undo your reinsertion of my edit and lets continue the discussion on the article talk page if you wish. BRD time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Soto

Greetings. My talk and edit comments tried to make clear that the existence of 7 volumes, which I retained, is not in doubt but the details and characterization of them is all OR and SYNTH. The publisher website is an additional primary source, not a secondary source. Please review policy and definitions of primary source. Please undo your reinsertion of my edit and lets continue the discussion on the article talk page if you wish. BRD time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made remarks on the talk page. You are misapplying primary source. Soto's CV is the primary source when he says "I wrote, I edited, I ... such and such." And primary sources can be used if they have reliability, particularly about the person. The secondary source is the publisher data which lists Soto as an editor on the copyright page. Also, we can confirm via WorldCat data. Your edit left the reader with the CV data only. The restored info has the Googlebooks data. It is more helpful, and serves to confirm what the CV says. – S. Rich (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi no you're wrong. The U Chi Press page is a primary source document. Policy cites the example of viewing a parking ticket, primary source, does not qualify to assert "Soto received a parking ticket." Please undo yourself and resolve on talk. I wouldn't want to encourage other editors to think edit-warring is a good mode of discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So even if UChicago (and Union Editorial) is primary, it is completely acceptable. We are not doing some intrepretation of the data. E.g., we are not saying "he was the primary editor" or "the widely published" or "influential" Spanish edition. We are simply saying Soto was an editor of the Spanish stuff. You are spinning this concern about primary too far. And you are misreading the PS guidance. "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." Soto is writing "I was in a traffic accident and here's what happened to me." – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The latter would not be an acceptable account of the facts concerning the incident, particularly to the extent it involved other people or entities and made assertions about the participant's actions relating to the accident. Does the Adolph Eichmann article quote him regarding the false allegations against him? Does Bill Clinton's article say "Clinton never had sex with that woman..." usw. I feel that you're inciting a riot on talk over there. Frankly although I know you understand the issues, I don't believe that other editors may even be aware of the wide range of the various roles which could all be described as 'editor' -- the whole thing needs a bona fide secondary source. Anyway, citing the 7 Hayek volumes as part of Editorial Union's project founded and headed by Soto, which was my solution, more than adequately references his important role and the scope of the project without resorting to any undue ambiguous, unsourced, or otherwise problematic claims. Please consider restoring my version while we continue talk page resolution. Thanks, amigo. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control

Srich Carolmoore attacked user:goethean, not me, on gun control. Your comment there was out of left field and had nothing to do with what had just happened. Please remove it. You should not be making personal remarks like that on article talk pages to begin with, especially on articles in which you've previously had no involvement. Please remove those remarks. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My talk page Iban

Since User: Srich keeps talking voluntary IBANs and wants to keep temperatures and soapbox down, how about he doesn't comment on my talk page (and specifico neither) unless it is a ("one") official template notice and then send me to the relevant noticeboard/talk page for further discussion. Thanks. 'CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying CarolMooreDC, that you don't want me to comment on your talkpage? And why is this a new section? It seems to be directed towards SPECIFICO. – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Srich. You are persona non grata. Welcome. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you tempt me to naughtiness on my personal talk page and I don't want to get in trouble. User: Specifio, I banned Steeletrap before, not you, even though you banned me way back when, remember? But I decided just to be fair to User: Srich should ban you too - unless you have official notices and for very limited discussion of them, like I just replied to your incivility complaint and mentioned that failure to discuss is edit warring, for which the diff'd evidence grows everyday. But I always liked to think people will see the light and become a Wikipedia Firster instead of a (MY POV) Firster.... 'CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽17:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Austrian School‎

That comment has everything to do with article improvement. The only difference between Lady O and SPECIFICO is that SPECIFICO is about one hundred times better at concealing the campaign of destruction. Making a few useful edits, using reasonable sounding edit descriptions that conceal the actual actions taken, citing respected sources and half sticking to what the sources actually said, ... Masterful gaming of the system. I applaud the intelligence behind the campaign. There is dedication and craftiness that would be one of the biggest assets ever if applied to improving articles rather than used to push unsupported propaganda against a theory onto an unfamiliar population. --Abel (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply is on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You deleted the Notable Alumni on the Desert Hot Springs High School site...

Srich32977,

I'm a teacher at Desert Hot Springs High School and I've been there since the beginning. This is the first time that we have had a notable alumni after 14 years of the school's opening. I asked Noemi Gonzalez if it would be okay to add her to the site. What do you want from me a signed document from Noemi.

Greg Andrade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.45.250 (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I will reply at User talk:Greg Andrade – S. Rich (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Noemi Gonzalez...

Srich,

Here's some information about her:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Los_High

http://eastloshigh.com/cast/

Sincerely,

Greg Andrade P.S.

I put some information on Robin Shou for Palm Springs High School, that was taken off as well, even though you have a Wiki page on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Andrade (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Greg, I'd prefer to discuss this on your talk page. I will remark there. That page is on my "watch list", so I will see any changes made. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican

Thanks for undoing my blunder. Not sure what happened. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; now all is well with the world – and Wikipedia! – S. Rich (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Petition to Pardon Bradley Manning and/or commute his sentence time already served.

I've started a discussion regrading the inclusion of a reference to the Petition to Pardon Bradley Manning on Talk:Bradley Manning and I'\m hoping that you'll join in Harold DarlingHarold Darling (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I removed the external petition link - do you have any further objections to the adding a reference the Petition to Pardon Bradley Manning reference?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold Darling (talk • contribs) 14:19, June 24, 2013‎

Yes. Discussion is on article talk page. We go with what's decided there by consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I am going back to he drawing board regarding a reference to Manning's petition - will probably rewrite the petition reference as part of a more comprehensive passage about the public response to Manning's disclosure of classified information - what is the protocol? Start a new discussion? or post on article talk page ? I am new to wikipedia editing and your assistance is appreciated

Harold Darling (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO you do not have consensus on the Manning talk page to add the petition link itself. Without looking, I think a secondary source (newspaper or some-such) has mentioned the petition. That would represent a compromise -- the mention is made (of this rather minor aspect to the Manning saga), without using WP to promote the petition. As for what you'd like to do, write up your proposed paragraph(s) and post them on the talk page.

Harold, you are quite daring in this initial WP effort. Manning has been a high profile article in the past, and so lots of editors follow it. Of course there are POVs about him -- so expect your newbie efforts in this process to generate push-back. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I should have never included a petition link - I was mistaken - and I can see the wisdom of not permitting folks to use Wikipedia for the sole purpose of increasing traffic - As for Manning passage, I am rewriting it tonight

Best Harold Darling (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward Leo Lyman page

Am I not supposed to link from a ref list or is the issue that I haven't created the page yet?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanks (talk • contribs)

You noted you were writing the article. Why don't you do so? See WP:REDNOT. – S. Rich (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sfthenerd

srich32977, i had made a mistake on the navy page, i didn't mean to do it; don't hit me too hard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfthenerd (talk • contribs)

Gotcha. Remark about vandalism stricken. Thanks for letting me know. (And be sure to sign your talk page remarks with the four ~~~~ squiggley marks.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unseemly situation

About your comment here, I have to agree. It was extremely unfortunate and unseemly. At least it was between me and an obviously inappropriate volunteer, but I sometimes have nightmares about a conflict between two experienced DR volunteers. If we can't work things out in the right way, then how can we expect anyone else who works at Wikipedia to do so? Perhaps it will never happen for that very reason, but the mere possibility gives me chills. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Inevitable complaint

So the complaint that I called inevitable did indeed happen. After looking over your talk page, that discussion is incomplete without your input. Abel (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But the only solution that I see between these editors is a WP:IBAN. I got {{user frustrated}} trying to keep them from scratching at each other on the talkpages. Perhaps I shall add my two-bits. – S. Rich (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Had no comment about their interaction. My post only covered my personal experience with SPECIFICO. You have plenty of personal experience with SPECIFICO, so I would encourage you to think about telling your story to make the story presented more complete. --Abel (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So you now support a mutual IBAN based on unsupported nonsense from SPECIFICO? SPECIFICO's problematic actions are many and well documented by diffs. SPECIFICO made claims against Carol and I, yet supported none of it, much like many of his problematic edits. The problem is not interaction. The problem is SPECIFICO's confrontational attitude. Everything is they versus me. The instant reverts without cause, the "he said -- she said" nonsense, the sad attempts to spin events into a personal conflict with everyone that SPECIFICO has ever disagreed with, defining every comment ever as a personal attack … the list goes on. Stalwart111 has the right idea. No reprimand whatsoever. Allow SPECIFICO to either change the problem behavior that everyone agrees is a problem, or keep doing it and prove to everyone that it was all intentional and not accidental. Abel (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI format

Hi there. I don't know whether you're still mentoring Abel, but he formatted a comment in a confusing way on ANI, interspersing his comments with single paragraphs of a statement I had made. To my eyes, that weakens the continuity of my statement (and his) and makes it hard to follow the time sequence. I'd really like to keep my comment in one piece and his comment (wherever located) in one piece. I've asked him to re-format at the end of the thread but he appears to be rather upset with me at the moment and I thought you might know what the protocol is for these things. I really would like to keep the discussion as clearly formatted as possible. Thanks. [2] [3] SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw both his comment and your remark on his talk page. As the comments are properly date stamped, it does not take much to figure out that he's replying to specific remarks. Not a big deal, IMO. But your talk page remark, even though polite and intended as helpful, was an admonition that illustrates the need for an IBAN. And I thought about commenting on the remark (e.g., the unneeded admonition) to the ANI. Probably won't though, as I really want support from the parties to go for an IBAN. CMDC would sign on as to a one-way for you, and I'd hope she'd agree to make it mutual. All of you ought to try it for 30 days. – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the comment you read as an admonition? The timestamps have been alienated from my text, and it is not clear to me so I think there will be others to whom it is also unclear. What admonition? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Admonishments vary in degree. Yours was quite mild, gentle. But coupled with some of the less than gentle admonishments in these discussions, I did not see it as necessary. Still, Abel again demonstrated flexibility and willingness to learn. And added to the remark to make it clear it was an interspaced edit. – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, sometimes a request is simply a request, no more no less. And "less than gentle admonishments in these discussions" means what, in the context of a simple straightforward request about formatting? SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

<—— This template was the first item on two of your less than gentle admonishments in the past. The whole set of discussions, on all of the talk pages and noticeboards, is what I've been referring to. – S. Rich (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no connection between that and the clear and clearly motivated request concerning formatting. Nor, of course, can I accept your characterization of an unspecified set of discussions without knowing the specifics and the connection (not that I'm asking at the moment.) Cheers. Time for a beer Srich. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Carol provided helpful instructions to Abel about formatting inserted talk page comments. You, in past edits to Abel's talkpage, posted the warning templates along with your misapplied 3RR admonitions. The connection is not the basis upon which the warnings or helpful hints were founded, but upon your interaction with Abel. (Even now Abel is complaining about your comments on his gender.) You can say "Please" all you want, and you can repeat that you feel the request is proper in terms of motivation, etc. But they currently have a complaint, now under discussion, about your interaction with them and "Please" won't lower the level of contention. Your request was not "simply a request". You could have, and did, figure out what Abel was referring to. So the comment really did not help. At the moment I prefer {{WikiScotch}}. Send me some Bushmills 21 year. – S. Rich (talk)

See what I mean? All "they versus me" thinking combined with perpetual attempts to avoid responsibility. I can't see how an IBAN is going to change anything other than the target. Would much rather have the target be me than some poor unsuspecting new editor. Abel (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a matter of me figuring out the thread, if that's what you mean. I found it confusing before it was reformatted. Somebody needed to reformat it. I would have thought it inappropriate if I did that rather than asking Abel to take care of it. I think I'm missing something here, but it's clear to me that a simple and transparent request such as reformatting is unrelated to any other interaction. I also thought it was collegial of carolmooredc to help out -- I didn't view it as helping Abel but as helping Abel to fulfill my request. Furthermore, carolmooredc and I had been cooperating on her ORN thread re:Soto and Predictions and on her notification on the fringe board. So all in all, I didn't feel we were all on red alert at the late this afternoon. Also, you may recall carolmooredc's gender-related remarks to me on some long ago talk page, which we all survived. So all-in-all I thought I was lightening the mood. I still think carolmooredc would have taken it that way, with a smile, but Abel clearly did not -- so now I know. Bushmills 21 is fine. My current bent is retro. I've returned to the Bruichladdich, which was a favorite on Wednesday evenings after the Austrian seminar in my school days. SPECIFICO talk 01:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The one template I'd like to see on these noticeboards is {{resolved}}. Abel, Carol, Steele, are you reading this? If so, post it on the noticeboards. – S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I just went to check the protocol on interruptions of other editors comments such as we just discussed. I found this [4].

"Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt an editor's long contribution, either with a short comment... before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found."
I understand this to mean that the editor whose text has been interrupted (in this case SPECIFICO) may ask the other editor to restore the uninterrupted text and post in some other format. Is that your reading of this? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

At the same time there is the restriction on reverting other's non-disruptive talkpage commentary. Abel's comment did not stoop to the level of disruption, so there may be a conflict in the protocols. Could you have moved the comment to the end of your thoughts? Probably. Does it matter? No. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Another issue: was your contribution a "long one"? By adding numbered paragraphs, you were breaking it up into various sections. Now Abel might have posted his comments at the end of your contribution and referenced them by numbers, but posting the comments at the end of each numbered paragraph really wasn't much of an interruption. Perhaps this point about interruptions deserves a . – S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Beats me? In his current frame of mind, I wasn't about to touch his formatting. Salut! SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reagan on AIDS

Hi Rich. I noticed you reverted my reversion of Reagan on AIDS. I look forward to working with you to get this right. Let me outline my reasoning for the reversion; and then you let me know what you think.

I agree with the anon editor that a defense of Reagan re: inaction (as alleged by his (far from pro-gay) his Surgeon General Koop and others) on AIDS ought to be noted. That's a big shortcoming of his entry on the LGBT page. I encourage you to find a reliable source who disagrees with Koop and the other sources cited on the page that Reagan's policy toward HIV/AIDS was one of inaction.

However, I believe the particular edits I reverted were problematic, for two reasons. First, it's totally misleading to note that Reagan increased HIV/AIDS funding from the beginning of his Administration, and to just leave it at that, because at the beginning of his administration AIDS wasn't even recognized as a disease. It's like saying George W. Bush dramatically increased funding for the War in Iraq from the beginning of his Administration (where there was no war, but some money was spent on enforcing the sanctions/no fly zones) to the end. The funding increases can be noted, but should be contextualized by the fact that when Reagan took office, AIDS wasn't even considered to be a disease. Second, the cited provides no evidence that it was Reagan, as opposed to Congressional Democrats, who pushed for increased (though spectacularly insufficient, given the scope of the crisis) HIV/AIDS funding. Simply being in office while Congress passes a certain law or resolution does not mean a President should be credited with it. Find an RS that says Reagan lobbied for such funding and it's OK to say this; but not until then.

On another note, There is an RS issue with the source behind the Reagan quotes. Brent Bozell and some anonymous right-winger at the IGF hardly constitute RS, in my view (as opposed to say, National Review or the Weekly Standard). Steeletrap (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You mean L. Brent Bozell, Jr.? As for the blogger, you mean Dale Carpenter? Looks like he's a law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School who writes for the Bay Area Reporter. (BTW, thanks for thinking of me in writing this post. I'm honored.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw the information on Carpenter; I was just dead wrong on the RS criticism. I think the rest of my critique stands in other respects, however, including regarding L. Brent Bozell, Jr. (who is the son of the guy you cited (I know this since the father died in 1997 and said article was written in 2004), who makes his living running a highly partisan non RS website called newsbusters.org) . Steeletrap (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to reread the RS Carpenter source from IGF; it appears to have been represented in a one-sided manner. In my judgment, something like this would be better:

In a piece entitled Reagan and AIDS: A Reassesment, University of Minnesota Law Professor and libertarian LGBT rights activist Dale Carpenter questions the "conventional view" that "Reagan was responsible for the deaths of thousands of gay men" during the AIDS crisis, arguing that while the "negligence theory" is arguable with respect to Reagan and AIDS, the "malice theory is a calumny." In defense of this view, Carpenter notes that Reagan stated when questioned on the matter in a 1985 press conference that AIDS was "a top priority" for his Administration, and also observes that the U.S. Congress increased HIV/AIDS funding from $8 million in 1982 (when HIV/AIDS had just been recognized as a disease by the CDC) to $2.3 billion in 1989. He concludes that while more money should have been spent to combat AIDS, "Reagan's stinginess on AIDS funding, if that's what it was, was not due to anti-gay malevolence but was an extension of his stinginess on funding other domestic program." The qualifier about it just having been just been recognized as a disease is important; Carpenter doesn't add it but I say we should. There is no evidence that Reagan lobbied the Congress for or even supported hte HIV/AIDS funding, and indeed this article implies the opposite, so we shouldn't put that until we get an RS that says it. The other sources are not RS and make ridiculous claims (i.e. that Reagan increased AIDS funding by 1000%, which is grotesquely misleading insofar as it fails to mention that AIDS didn't exist as a formally recognized condition when his Administration took office and also credits Congress' increase in funding to Reagan, who was (as Carpenter puts it) an advocate of "stingy" spending on the matter. Steeletrap (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look. But as for the LGBT rights article, I can't see how this issue as to levels of government research funding properly fits in. Is there some "right" to have the government spend money somewhere? I have the right to vote, speak, lobby, earn a living, associate with whom I please, to be left alone, practice religion or not, to publish, etc. Each of these pertains to me as an individual. But I'm male, and prostate cancer kills more males than breast cancer kills females. Do I -- as an individual -- have a right to increased funding on prostate cancer research? Am I -- as an individual -- being discriminated against because of this disparity in funding or research? Wait a second. I am not a pet owner, yet my local government (perhaps supported by the state & feds) is spending all sorts of money on a very big animal shelter. It is not being funded by pet license fees. Isn't the local government discriminating against me by taking my tax dollars and spending it on a project that's needed only because a certain number of pet owners are irresponsible? – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to hold the view that the government has no role in funding scientific research to fight pandemics that have killed tens of thousands of people. But most people (mainstream conservatives and liberals, certainly) certainly regard HIV/AIDS funding as an issue pertaining to human rights generally and LGBT rights in particular (President Clinton's dramatic escalation of HIV/AIDS funding, as well as Bush's continuing of that funding and also allocating resources to fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa, may have violated abstract libertarian ideology but undou btedlysaved tens to hundreds of thousands of lives). We should present the HIV/AIDS funding issue in regards to Reagan and let the reader determine whether this is an LGBT rights issue; the fact is that most mainstream RS regard it as such. Steeletrap (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Stuck

These stuck thingies are not feeling very helpful. Are they in common use? It feels as if instead of posting a stuckie it would be better to state something on the board. Also, I don't think a thread could get stuck in a space of less than 24 hours. It takes time to develop a thread and for additional editors to stop by. "Stuck" looks pejorative either to passers-by or to recent posters who may feel, regardless of your intention, that you are criticizing their input without stating why or offering your own. I would be more comfortable without the stucks. Please consider SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything that might help to bring the curtain down on these dramas would be helpful. So I'm trying {{Stuck}} to see what works. If it doesn't, then there is {{Deadlocked}}. – S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Not all editors are watching these boards as frequently or impatiently as you may be. I presume you mean "drama" as a pejorative and it's really not appropriate. If in fact they are pointless, then there's no cost to letting the threads die a natural death. No editor is compelled to participate or to read them. Please remove the templates. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

With or without the templates no editor is compelled. But the templates do serve as a useful indication that WP:TLDR is a factor, thereby saving themselves some time. If you have proposals that will end the discussions, then you can post them. (But what might you say? Perhaps: "Keep this discussion open because it has some or might develop some merit.") On the contrary, because of the automatic archiving (which ends the discussion after a certain period with no posts), you should want editors to leave them alone. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would anybody want editors to leave a thread alone? I'm not following. I will tell you that the drive-by tags makes you look like a sniper who is critical of others without making the same effort they've already made to post in a way you call "stuck" -- just take it from a fly on the wall it really makes you look snide and negative. Up to you. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRIVEBY is not occurring! I have participated and observed and offerred solutions (6 postings to the ANI for example). I'll accept the risk that people might think I'd not attempting to be truly helpful. (Moreover, you are not a fly on the wall, you are (one of) the subject of discussion.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Remove - Please do not discriminate

Hi, please edit remove the desert hot springs chamber of commerce link as that is as much spam as the desert hot springs merchants association link. Thank you. It is not fair to discriminate against one organization in preference for another. Please be fair and remove the listing for the chamber of commerce.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpublisher (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I shall remove the CoC. – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)‎

Sockpuppet editing

Not sure what this is, but FYI, I logged into Wikipedia on a Chrome browser, and also had Wikipedia open on a Mozilla browser, and at some point I noticed I'd done an edit or two in Mozilla, where I wasn't logged in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesehead2013 (talk • contribs)

Not sure if you were involved, but at 16:39 someone deleted 100s of words from the entry, even though much of the material seemed important, and the citations were accurate. I went through all the changes line by line and restored most of it. It was a hassle because so much was deleted at once (had to do it manually). It looked like someone friendly to Kokesh was just going through and getting rid of accurate information that reflected poorly on Kokesh. Isn't there some sort of rule against mass deletes of accurate information? Or at least it's a practice frowned on? I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so please forgive the probably stupid question. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesehead2013 (talk • contribs)

No sweat on the IP issue. Now that you've got a username, please edit under it. You can learn more about WP by going through the tutorial. As for edits, learning what is okay and not often takes experience, but reading the guidelines, etc. will help. Finally, Cheesehead, please sign your talk page comments by adding 4 tilde marks like this: ~~~~ Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WMSCOG and ASH page overlap

Can you please add your 3O findings to the Ahn_Sahng-hong page? The plan is to put together an NCPCOG page but, in the meantime and likely after it is done, there is probably going to be some push-back from some editors to the ASH page if someone were to put in a bullet regarding the claims of the NCPCOG wrt ASH also being their founder and being seen as the Prophet Elijah and not JC reborn. There is some issue wrt WP:OWN on both the WMSCOG and the ASH pages. Kind of a bummer considering the plethora of photographs available on one of the NCPCOG pages of ASH at work. Superfly94 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. There is no dispute on ASH, is there? You can copy & paste as you see fit. But please don't take or use anything I said out of context. – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Jack Swanstrom

I just happened upon the following edit you made to Jack Swanstrom:

cur | prev) 17:01, 16 August 2010 Srich32977 (talk | contribs) (1,112 bytes) (del cats as article does not discuss; IMDB may have this info, but there is no verification) (undo)

I've restored the removed categories and refer you to:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BSM_full.JPG

I can respect a desire for some type of official authentication/verification of veterans awards -- but you should be aware that these records are seldom available to the general public. And let's face it, if someone said to a newspaper reporter that they had an Bronze Star and it was printed -- well, does that make it verifiably so? Does every newspaper reporter verify the military records of every interviewee?

Adding timestamp so this thread can be archived. – S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#addendum Byelf2007 (talk) 11 October 2011

Timestamp to facilitate archiving. – S. Rich (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:16, January 29, 2013‎

Timestamp to facilitate archiving. – S. Rich (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nikpapag comment

Oh sorry Srich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikpapag (talk • contribs) 04:24, May 2, 2013

Timestamp to facilitate archiving. – S. Rich (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sry, I don't know any place else to write this...

Well, it is certainly "not an article improvement comment" but also doesn't disparage Manning. It does disparage the US people who put their heros in prison and give their criminals stars and stripes. The same happened in Germany some years ago...history repeating itself. USA going to war for oil by using more oil it'll ever gain. Deeply unintelligent. 178.197.226.97 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you are writing about the comment on Talk:Bradley Manning which I removed. For guidance as to what we put on talk pages, please look at WP:TPG. – S. Rich (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK

Hi! "AFAIK" means "As far as I know" - It is common internet slang.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

See: WP:Citation_templates#Examples – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about that. Thank you for pointing it out! I'll inquire on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Citation_templates#Citation_templates_and_alphabetizing_the_2nd_author.2C_etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Flag Icon

Hello, I just have a question about flag icons. I have been putting flag icons on wiki articles only that are needed. You are telling me that i am vandilizing articles which is wrong. I did put a flag icon on Rachel Dratch because she was born in America so i put the American flag! I am not trying to purposly vandilize articles i just didnt know it was a bad thing. Also did you report me as a vandilizer? Because if you did i woud be very upset i did not mean to hurt any articles. Also what is wrong with flag icons many people have told me they are good for the article and thats what got me started i want to make wikipedia better. Please respond and answer my questions that would great! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.207.5 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The remark about vandalism on the IP talk page have been stricken. (That is the common method of retracting such statements.) I added it because you had repeated the flag icon additions even though another editor had advised not to and quoted guidance about the icons. You have not been reported as a vandal. Please readup on WP policy and go through the tutorial you will enjoy the editing experience much more. Also, please consider registering as a WP editor. We'd love to have you as a member of the community. Thanks for taking the time to ask your questions on this page. – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Food for Thought

I see that you recently re-inserted some text on Cato Institute which appears to be similar to the text you are opposing on the Foundation for Economic Education article in that both give background and context to the material relevant to related content in the article. It's not clear why one would argue that the former is appropriate while the latter is SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

1. The Cato/Koch stuff is a hot topic. (If you've watched MSNBC, you'll see that the Koch family is frequently brought up as a topic.) As I recall, there was considerable WP debate about how much info on the Kochs & Cato should be inserted (in both articles). And I recall that the note, as opposed to inline descriptions or mere footnoting, was a compromise WRT the display of info. (More article history and/or talk page review would be needed to confirm this.) Moreover, the Kochs are not a household name (like the BF Goodrich Blimp is), so a mere wikilink is not enough to satisfy those who want the Koch role in Cato expanded upon. 2. Irregardless [sic], there is no SYN in the Cato article. There is the ongoing corporate support listed in Cato, and ongoing corporate support for FEE can be added. It is mere background info. (NPR receives corporate support too.) 3. Now if the Cato article had quoted from The Science of Success (or other things that the Kochs had written), thereby giving us info about the "moral beliefs" etc. of the Kochs and thereby explaining their motivations for funding/supporting/creating Cato, that would be improper SYN! – S. Rich (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed at how approximate and selective your applications of policy have recently become. 1. Recent hot topic is explicitly not valid per policy. 2. This is entirely your assertion, subjective and not policy-based. 3. Like most of your justifications on the FEE article, this is false analogy, a very weak form of persuasion and certainly not a policy-based rationale. We can do yet another RfC, but frankly I hope you'll reconsider before we take the time and effort to do so. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

1. The term "Hot topic" simply helps explain a compromise that was reached, some time ago, when lots of contentious editing was going on. 2. I have yet to see a counter-argument/analysis to the SYN analysis I have provided – either in FEE or de Soto. 3. The analogy as to motives/"moral beliefs" of the founders/donors, which has support from RS which do not independently mention FEE (as in Read) or de Soto (as with Milton) is exactly on point. (Moreover, the size of Koch industries has nothing to do with the moral beliefs of the Kochs. My personal preference is that the size of the business be left out, but that was not the editing decision at the time.) I am disappointed that you are not focused on the issue/actual analysis of SYN – and have not come up with a "Ah-Ha!" moment. (The only thing I get is "these people do not agree with you", "you are wrong", etc. Give me an analysis that addresses the "A + B therefore implicit C" issue.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Rich, Unfortunately I must agree with SPECIFICO that there appears to be an apparent inconsistency in your arguments on FEE/Read and CATO/Koch. At the very least, it requires pretty eccentric reasoning to detect a clear difference between the logic underlying the FEE edit and that of the Cato edit. I urge to rexamine your thinking in light of this apparent inconsistency.Steeletrap (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion in Inland Empire

Well caught. I was using the dab challenge tool (https://toolserver.org/~dpl/ch/monthly_list.php) and looks like it destroyed my edit in a strange way.

Aisteco (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing HIV/AIDS funding from LGBT rights page

I'm confused by your reasoning there. I understand your libertarian view of rights as negative and fixed (based on "non-coercion" or "non-interference" in a libertarian understanding of the term). What I don't understand is your view that a (to some extent) relative and indeterminate conception of rights (which I, and most ethicists for that matter, adhere to) maccording to which gov spending to alleviate pandemics which are rapidly killing tens of thousands of people is a rights issue, even if spending to stop certain pandemics isn't, is (in a factual or encyclopedic sense) wrong. Rights aren't objective features of the world like rocks; they are subjective conceptual constructs which we derive from consideration of the amount of happiness they create and suffering they alleviate, and (arguably) the extent to which they adhere to principles we care about, such as the value of human life (or in the libertarian case, "free will" non-coercion and the like!)

tl;dr version = Since values aren't facts, factually/encyclopedically speaking, there is no "right" conception of rights if an RS says something is a right. On an issue like this, we refer to what RS say; if some RS say that HIV/AIDS funding at the height of the pandemic wasn't an LGBT rights issue, we should cite it. But there is no argument for removing the RS which do cite HIV/AIDS funding as an LGBT rights issue, and criticize (or praise) Reagan on LGBT rights grounds for the amount of funding he allocated to HIV/AIDS. Steeletrap (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

LGBT rights are those that all humans share – human rights. But where can we/do we find a right for funding for particular medical problems, whether related to sexual identity or not? Look at {{Rights }}. LGBT rights is listed there, but simply as a listing by country. (Plants are there too.) How are LGBT rights different from other human rights? I have an old school friend whose brother was a hemophiliac. He died in the 1980s from AIDS. Not because he was sexually active one way or the other -- he got it from transfusions before we knew about the transmission of HIV via blood. Were his rights abridged? Yes. But how do we say so in an encyclopedic fashion? We've got to go with what the RS says. If there are people who have written about health research as a rights issues -- whether or not related to HIV/AIDS -- then we can put that material in an article. But for us to say "The US government during the administration of President X did not provide as much funding for AIDS as some people would desire and therefore President X was ...." is going well beyond what WP is about. – S. Rich (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the Human Rights Campaign's (whose purpose is exclusively related to LGBT rights) "issue brief" on HIV/AIDS, which outlines various Congressional lobbying efforts HRC is undertaking, for instance, to "provide funding for science-based, comprehensive sex education, which provides all youth the tools they need to live healthy lives and reduces new HIV infections". Few RS explicitly say "HIV/AIDS funding is related to gays rights", but that's because it's more or less regarded as a matter of common sense in human rights/civil rights/LGBT circles. Steeletrap (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Different people have different views as to what priorities should be WRT funding issues. What sort of edits are you looking for? Something in general, or specific items? – S. Rich (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

WRT your opening paragraph, see: Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights. – S. Rich (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

libertarian perspectives on rights (effectively saying you have an absolute right to person and property but nothing more than that) strike me as uncompelling due to, among other reasons, the fact that rights in the libertarian sense did not (empirically) precede the existence of the state. Rights (including the right to property) are socially necessary, but they are also socially constructed. (Without a state that punishes and social norms that condemn theft, someone's "right to property" is effectively meaningless -- again, rights aren't rocks, and exist as concepts in the minds of people.)

But that's neither here nor there, as far as WP is concerned. We have to try our best to stick to facts and encyclopedic rigor rather than value judgments, as I'm sure you'd agree. That commitment dictates that we not remove any of the RS-sourced HIV/AIDS related material from the LGBT rights page. Steeletrap (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Which LGBT rights page? Moreover, simply because the RS uses the term HIV/AIDS it does not transform the RS info into a LGBT rights topic. You say libertarians advocate "nothing more than" the right to person & property. What other rights are they missing? Freedom of speech, association, assembly, press, the vote, religion, etc? – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no objectively right answer to "what are rights?" Rights would not exist without minds to perceive of them; they are not objective features of the world, but only exist in the minds of people. Different people and cultures have different conceptions of what rights are, and you can't "prove" they're wrong to believe as they do (nor they you). That many RS regard HIV/AIDS to be a gay rights issue is sufficient to include it in the subsecttion of the article regarding Reagan's (alleged) inaction or "killing silence" on AIDS (when government funding could have saved eventually did save tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives), just as gay marriage and adoption are included, though many RS disagree that these are rights. Steeletrap (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Therein lies our problem. How do we parse our subjective opinions as to what are rights when carrying out our commitment to edit WP in a NPOV manner? Relying on secondary sourcing helps, as does the prohibition on OR. As for government action (or inaction), various people want action (and, more importantly, money) to assist their causes. Everyone with a pocket to line wants more. (I guess exotic dancers, lacking clothing, are an exception.) If they don't get enough, there is a danger that they will argue that animal rights, pet rights, plant rights, women's rights, children's rights, patient rights, employee rights, employer rights, and on and on and on, are getting short-changed. Why? Because their rights are being trampled upon -- and lives may be lost! Well, we are Wikipedians and we don't want WP to be a vehicle to support their POV arguments. So first things first: let's find something, like a definition of LGBT rights, that supports inclusion of federal government research funding decisions by Congress for particular constituents in articles about LGBT rights. – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)