User talk:Radgeek/Archive 2001-2009

Kripkenstein

See my answer to your question on the Kripkenstein talk page. Ben Finn 19:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Dworkin

I've been impressed for awhile with the work you've been doing there. So, praise to you. The Literate Engineer 16:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also want to thank you for your efforts on the Dworkin page. You've been a hero and without you, that page - and that talk page - would be just another vulgar and depressing platform for anti-Dworkin (and anti-woman) ranting. Thanks so much.

W.I.T.C.H. (organisation)

Yo, thanks for the work you've done on WITCH. Its now a decent short article. AnAn 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee notes

There is a discrepancy in the footnotes to Robert E. Lee since your last edit. The highest Ref # is 17, but there are 18 Notes. Can you diagnose and fix, please? Thanks, Hal Jespersen 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn French

Not overly impressed with your hijacking of this article, and I suppose from now on you'll be diligently guarding it from being altered in a manner not in accordance to your radical feminist bias. Suit yourself. Your insistance on having "anti-feminist" preceed "critics" is somewhat troubling. Certainly you don't think that the only people are critical of misandry in her writing are anti-feminists, do you? This is very POV and an example of why Wikipedia is often criticized for being inaccurate and unreliable. Kscheffler 08:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-feminist

Show me a legitimite source that states that these critics are all against feminism. If you can, then it stays. Otherwise, it is original research and will be changed from "anti=feminists" back to "critics." Bsd987 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bsd987, the sources linked are each of them explicitly opposed to feminism as a movement; they state this themselves ("Cool Tools 4 Men," the third source linked, even lists "Anti-Feminism" by name in the title of its main page.) If you do a Google search for the "quote", you'll find the following results:

BrainyQuote
A page from "Sex War", which states "Nevertheless I want to use this phrase as an example of the endemic anti-male sexism within the feminist movement" and elsewhere states "I am not saying feminism is like a hate movement, my hypothesis is that it is a hate movement."
WhatQuote
WikiPedia
WikiPedia mirror at Answers.com
CyberNation quote site
Article from Cool Tools 4 Men: "Feminists have used the word "rapist" to attack men in the same way that another hate-group - white-supremacists - used "Nigger" to attack black people." The website explicitly describes "Anti-Feminism" as one of the topics it covers.
ThinkExist.com quote site
Critical user review of "The War Against Women" on Amazon.com, from user david_byron, stating "Just in case you forgot -- this tripe is mainstream feminism. This book is an excellent answer to those who want to pretend feminist bigotry represents only the "extremists" in the movement."
MensNewsDaily article by Carey Roberts, explicit opponent of feminism as a movement
Politics - Feminism - Misandrist Quotes by T. R. Parker, from a quote list collected by "G. Schrock." "Victimal feminist thinking has at its driving core the concerted effort to avoid self-responsibility." The compiler, Gladden Schrock, is a professor of drama at Bennington College.
"Feminist Hate Speech", from the same quote list collected by "G. Schrock."
ThinkExist quote site
Quote list from fatherseqrts.org. Claims not to be anti-feminist: "These Feminist don't represent the true feminist movement, understand there are two. Feminist for equality which most of us believe in and feminist for choice. ..." Taken from the same quote list collected by "G. Schrock."
Comment on blog post at feministing, from commenter remarking "hmmmmm is feminsim a hate movement???" Taken from the same quote list collected by "G. Schrock."
WhatQuote quote site
WorldOfQuotes quote site
Article from The Backlash!, by Allistair McAllistar. Criticizes "Dr. French and her feminist colleagues," "these feminist mandates," etc. Publication takes its title from a book by Susan Faludi about anti-feminism in the 1980s, and is explicitly anti-feminist; cf. for example the recurring "Feminism Unclothed" feature: [1], [2], [3], etc.

... and so on.

I conclude that the folks who pull the quote out of its context at all fall into two groups: (1) bad quote websites, and (2) critics explicitly opposed to feminism, who present the quote as evidence of "misandry" by French and, by association, feminism as a movement. Those who use it for polemical purposes (rather than simply "quoting" it without either context or comment, like the bad quote sites do) are overwhelmingly explicit opponents of feminism. Thus, "anti-feminist critics" is the best description for them, unless you think that "anti-feminist" means something other than "against feminism." (I don't.) "Critics" simpliciter does not tell you anything useful at all about who is making the criticsm, and amounts to a rather obnoxious form of weasel-wording that is already far too common on WikiPedia.

Hope this helps. Radgeek 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't really proved that people who consider the quotation to be suggestive of misandry on the part French are "anti-feminists," rather that some people who consider themselves to be "anti-feminists" use the quotation to further their agenda. Therefore, by using the phrase "anti-feminist critics" you are implying that anyone who feels that the quotation is suggestive of misandry is in effect an "anti-feminist". In other words, you are trying to impose your own bias rather than being neutral. As I stated earlier, it's instances like this that make Wikipedia less reliable than it should be.Kscheffler 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kscheffer, the "implication" here is your own fabrication. The sentence "Anti-feminist critics have sometimes quoted Val's dialogue as evidence of misandry by French (and other feminists by association), ..." says nothing about whether anyone who "feels that the quotation is suggestive of misandry is in effect an 'anti-feminist.'" It says only that those who have been documented as having made this claim are, in fact, anti-feminists. I documented this by doing a Google search and demonstrating that the people who have been documented as using the quotation for the polemical purpose that you describe are, in fact, overwhelmingly explicit anti-feminists. Nixing this documented information in order to pass the folks who have made the criticism as generic "critics" amounts to POV by way of weasel words. Including the information, since it is easily documented, is not. Radgeek 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentialism

Thank you very much for your comments. They are, in fact extremely helpful. I have to admit I have not yet put as much effort into the criticisms section as I would have liked; however, your comments do point out several ways I think it can be constructively revised. I'll reply in more detail at the talk page there. Ig0774 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Polk

I thank you for bringing in that he was a slave owner, as that was an oversight of this article (one of many). I think that you originally added it in the wrong place and thus I removed it and put it in the post-presidency section, as his post-presidential finances were going to be from his slaves. It really was not that big in his early life, save his personal slave. I think it could be added somewhere else in describing his argued bias while in office towards the south, but not in the Early Life section. Also, it definitely does not deserve an entire paragraph, especially into such details as describing slaves running away and being returned. That happened everywhere. I'm glad you read Dusinberre's book, but his book really isn't that important in an article about the political career of Polk. He was not known as a slaveowner so lets keep that and his plantation away from the focus! Bsd987 21:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about Polk's political career; it's about his life. You might say that his political career was the main way in which his life was remembered, and that his slaveholding is comparatively unimportant. But (1) it's not clear at all that his political career wasn't influenced by his slaveholding (a lot of people at the time certainly thought that it was); (2) the amount of space devoted to his political career currently dwarfs the combined length of all the information about his slaveholding by anyone; and (3) whether or not Polk was "known as a slaveholder" depends on whom you ask. Certainly he was primarily known as a slaveholder to his slaves, and I'm not sure their opinion is less important than the opinion of latter-day Presidential historians.

The rest of my replies are at Talk:James K. Polk. Radgeek 19:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington and Slavery

using the words "more humane" would be a much more effective and less verbose way of stating the issue. Your opinion about whether slavery can ever be "humane" is not pertinent to the issue of how it should be worded. I hate slavery too, but "more humane" works just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demaratus83 (talk • contribs)

Anarcho-capitalism

Here is one source saying "Outside the net [anarcho-capitalists] are irrelevant and on the net they are just annoying."

Though I doubt that will convince you that anarcho-capitalists are in the minority. What would convince you, though? -- infinity0 21:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings...

...From a fellow Auburner, liberty-lover, etc. It's been a long time, Charles... I hope you are well. Dick Clark 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...And congratulations. I just saw the announcement in the O-A News about your forthcoming union! Kind regards to you and your bride-to-be! Dick Clark 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a damn legend

Mate, I dunno what i'd do without that article about The Gettier Problem. Thanks so much for everything you contributed to it. Us stoner philosophy students would be ruined without you.--87.74.41.147 14:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAMES BATCHELDER

Hi. James Batchelder was my first contribution. I'm glad somebody noticed it. I don't know how I got the state wrong. The "returned" thing is a fine point. It is actually the term used in the entry on Anthony Burns. Peter Reilly 17:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-libertarianism

Charles, I noticed that there is no article for Austro-libertarianism. While WP is not a dictionary, it seems that the term encapsulates a particular Rothbardian/Blockian perspective that isn't precisely described elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Note that the Property and Freedom Society uses this term to describe their philosophy, for example. How do you think I (or whoever) should proceed on this? Regards, Dick Clark 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RadGeek's own article

Hey, check out your own article. For the full effect, go to Charles Johnson. What do you think? Paul 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I Martin, award you this barnstar for your excellent contributions to Andrea Dworkin, currently a well-written and comprehensive article and one I'd like to see as an FA in the future. Keep up the good work! Martin Hinks 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell GA/R

I have nominated Bertrand Russell for WP:GA/R due to inadequate referencing. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves during this process to retain its quality rating. Please see discussions at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Bertrand_Russell. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aura Bogado

Aura Bogado, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Aura Bogado satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aura Bogado and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Aura Bogado during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Example of accident and essence

A tag has been placed on Template:Example of accident and essence requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Andrea Dworkin

I have reassessed this article and found issues with the referencing which need to be addressed if the article is to retain GA status. The reassessment comments are at Talk:Andrea Dworkin/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]