Talk:Daniel Pipes/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Comments posted in February 2007

1 Cleanup tag
2 No Personal attacks policy
3 Movement of comments on article content
4 Unbalanced
5 Comments on bullets
6 Archiving of this page cut off still current, post-January 2007 comments and left the January 2007 comments
7 Comments pertaining to the current tag concerning reference problem on the article

Cleanup tag

This article is woefully remiss in its lack of citations throughout and in its over-dependence on Pipes's personal website for information about him and publications that are listed as external links (mostly). I have attempted to make a start at cleanup; others will have to aid in providing full, accurate, verifiable, reliable citations throughout. This article does not currently follow guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, including Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Cite. What I provide throughout is only a start at what needs to be a thorough overhaul of this article in order for it to be in keeping with quality standards in Wikipedia (editing guidelines and policies). --NYScholar 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The problems are discussed both above and in the editing history. The article is not "fine"; I and other editors (above) have complained about its lack of neutrality and lack of adequate sourcing. See Wikipedia:NPA as well. Focus on content not on the contributor. --NYScholar 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove my posts. I am warning you, NYS. You're not going to turn this article into chaos as you do elsewhere, and you may have violated 3RR already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

reinserted SV's post. It was not a personal attack. Do not remove other editors talk page comments NYScholar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be specific; give one example of something that you specifically think is lacking. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No Personal attacks policy

The comments that I removed (see editing history, unless SV has entirely deleted them from the record) were indeed personal attacks: I removed them. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . She is absolutely out of line. She also removed a tag directing people to the comment previously made on this talk page, with only her own POV (not Wikipedia:NPOV) in mind. That is really disgraceful, and I object most strenuously to it and to her editorial practices and abuses of other editors, who have just as much right to work on articles as she does. She actually deleted material that I posted and called it a negative term, addressing me personally in the editing history in an entirely-uncivil manner multiple times. She has a real problem that needs attention. See Wikipedia:Etiquette and etiquette. Every time she addresses me, she abuses me. To me that is against Wikipedia:NPA. --NYScholar 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

She has also reverted my improvements to the article. I added, for example, an access date to an article (same article citation that I was working on adding at the same time that she was (note 1), and she actually removed that. These kinds of changes are not "improvements" and, even if they were improvements, they are subject to discussion as content changes. I worked hard on many articles to add full citations where they are lacking (see Wikipedia:Cite). If anyone is engaging in so-called "wikilawyering," it appears to me that Swatjester and SV are themselves doing that. I simply was trying to signal that this article needs improvement (as it does; all those external links need to be converted to full citations; they need to be checked and verified and verifiable. The article is unbalanced as it depends too much on material from Daniel Pipes's own website; this is an issue of content. I placed a tag called "unbalanced" to indicate that there was discussion of this problem on the talk page, as there was. An editor has indeed objected to the unbalanced nature of this article and the need to clean up the problems of lacking full citations. That requires editorial work. The tags were and are legitimate. I am entitled to point out this problems, and I have done so and continue to do so. They are content problems, not personal problems. SV has a way of dragging such differences of editorial opinion down to personal levels. She does not need to address me at all. She needs to address the content issues that I am complaining about. Until she does that, she has no credence as an editor in my view, and, as far as I'm concerned, my view is worth paying attention to. If you want crappy articles in Wikipedia, you can ignore it. But you will end up with just that: crap. --NYScholar 09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the article. I'm talking about your edits on the talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] is not a personal attack. Please stop referring to it as such. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I removed (from history):

Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) :Do not remove my posts. I am warning you, NYS. You're not going to turn this article into chaos as you do elsewhere, and you may have violated 3RR already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC) :::reinserted SV's post. It was not a personal attack. Do not remove other editors talk page comments NYScholar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] is not a personal attack. Please stop referring to it as such. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Singling out an editor by name and commenting on the editor and threatening the editor ("don't even think about it...." etc.) and making similar personal comments addressing the editor in the editing history of the article are indeed "personal attacks"; it is clear to me and to anyone else that that is what is happening here. Try a little distance, and you will see it too. --NYScholar 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, there was no threat. Second off, calling you out by name is not a personal attack. There is a definitive policy on what is and what is not a personal attack at WP:NPA. What you are doing right now is called wikilawyering and is disruptive, and your comments are incivil to her, and becoming incivil to me. Let me be very clear about this: your interpretation of the personal attacks policy is completely incorrect, and your claims of personal attacks, as such are incivil and disruptive. I highly recommend you just let this go and drop it all now before this escalates any further⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: but it is clear to me that "Don't even think about starting on this page, NYS" implies that something bad will happen to me if I do "start" working on this article. I have a right to work on improving articles if I want to take my time to do that. Neither SV nor anyone else has a right (as an administrator or not) to tell me that I cannot work on an article. That violates Wikipedia editing policy. She, like everyone else, has to know that one's work is going to be edited by others; the notice is at the bottom of every Wikipedia article page. It applies to all editors, whether or not they are administrators. I was trying actually to add full citations to the article and to check to see whether a full citation could be found for the "neoconservative" claim; I found Daniel Pipes's article now cited as note 1 and was in the midst of adding it, when SV did multiple reverts of my previous changes (which were pending such citations). These are content issues not personal issues and they need attention in this article (throughout it). SV has removed the tags and editorial interpolated comments indicating the work that is needed. They were reasonable comments and they need attention from more neutral editors than apparently she is in relation to this particular article. That is my comment on the content of this article (see above prior to her removing the tag relating to the comment re: "unbalanced"); it is a legitimate comment and she had no right to remove it or to "warn" me that I had better stay away from "her" article (or else). This is not so-called "wikilawyering": this is a description of what is happening here. It is also not an "editing war"; at least it was not one until SV started deleting the tags that I had placed on the article and calling my work names ("disfiguring" the article, e.g.). Of course, I have no intention to "disfigure" any article. I was legitimately signaling the content problems which I had already discussed on the talk page. --NYScholar 09:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)09:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

But something bad isn't happening to you, it's happening to me, your reader. You are boring me to tears! I demand an apology. —Viriditas | Talk 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't see this comment by Viriditas before. If I had, I would never have responded with courtesy or at all to his asking me to come here to put bullets in etc. [....] Viriditas. If you don't want to read about what to do about improving content of articles, don't come to talk pages. If I had realized how disingenuous you were in what you posted on my talk page, I would simply have ignored you, as I will do from hereon. [The bracketed ellipses are my own. Fill in what you think might be most appropriate there.] Talk pages are not forums for discussing subjects; they are for discussing improvements to articles. I really don't see SV doing that, or any of her buddies doing that. I see them just trying to keep other people from doing that. --NYScholar 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Movement of comments on article content

NYScholar, I've moved your lengthy repetitive discussion and re-hash of the article and the Talk: page to User:NYScholar/Daniel Pipes. Please do not fill this talk page with lengthy diatribes and dissertations; if you have any comments, please keep the brief, and specifically on the topic of the Daniel Pipes article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: You have not got my authorization to create any kind of user page for me. I've moved the material to Daniel Pipes/deleted material, which is what it is. My comments have to do with the content and editing of the content of this article and are entirely appropriate on a talk page for an article. If necessary, I will move them to an archived talk page for the article later. --NYScholar 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Brief comments specifically about suggested changes to article content are welcome. Brief comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to my own talk page, archive 2, which I created for that purpose. See that page of my talk page if interested in the content. If not interested, please refrain from making any comment. --NYScholar 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg: Please figure out how to delete that page that you created. I would blank it, but I want you to see the note first. I don't know how to delete such a page. Since you created it, I suggest that you delete it. The material is archived in my talk page archive 2. --NYScholar 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now blanked the page (after re-reading the Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Any administrator can delete that page that Jayjg created now. Content relating to Daniel Pipes (this article) and improvements to it are in archive 2 of my talk page. --NYScholar 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now added that page that Jayjg created without my authorization to requests for deletion discussion. Some kind-hearted administrator should be able to handle the request. --NYScholar 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, 1) the page Jayjg created is not "yours" any more than this article is yours; 2) I think the "don't even start" is a figure of speech that shouldn't be taken as a threat that should concern you. It's my observation, having run into you several places, that you have a tendency to intersperse useful (at best) and innocuous but annoying (at worst) edits with strong POV edits. I don't know if you do this innocently or deviously and have no way of knowing. But it certainly gets in the way of a productive polemic, especially since it's followed by self-righteous diatribes like the one Jaygj moved. It is of course your prerogative to edit in this fashion, but you'll have to expect opposition that will at times become strident. --Leifern 20:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An administrator, recognizing the legitimacy of my request, has already deleted the page. The user page is my user page, and I did not authorize any forking of this article via my user page. I posted the comments legitimately in this talk page, but they were deleted whole by jayjg with complete disregard for talk page guidelines and Wikipedia policy prohibiting such deletions. [Calling good faith editing comments--which my comments were and are--"disruptive" is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Etiquette or Wikipedia:Civility: see the talkheader tag at top of page. --NYScholar 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)]

There is no requirement for so-called "brevity" in talk page discussions of improvements to an article (form and content issues). It is not up to some editors to tell other editors that they must be "brief." One takes as much space as needed to make one's points clearly. If repetition occurs, it is because when stated the first time, other people do not seem to get the point. Repetition is a form of emphasis: from the definition in the Wikidictionary linked there: in the sense: "Special weight or forcefulness given to something considered important."

My final comments on this article are in archive 2 of my own talk page. Anyone who wants to find the clear-cut objections that I already defined regarding the problems of lack of neutrality and lack of balance and missing and incomplete citations in this article can read them in my previous comments on this page and in my subsequent comments on my talk page archive 2. If they want to make "bullets" out of them (see further comment below mine here), they can do so.

I stand by all my edits as in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite. But I've done all the work that I wish to do relating to this article due to the unpleasant nature of this experience. The incivility, insults, other breaches of Wikipedia:Etiquette, and intellectual dishonesty that I have encountered from administrators and other editors trying to twist articles to reflect their own points of view on subjects like Daniel Pipes (and other controversial subjects) and to avoid neutrality by eliminating and thus hiding the actual details of sources being cited are documented in this talk page and others. Wikipedia:Cite recommends adding full citations in dealing with articles concerning controversial subjects and living persons (WP:BLP). This is not so-called "wikilawyering": this is adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Throughout Wikipedia, there is also a lot of plagiarism from unacknowledged sources which needs proper sourcing through vigilant editing. Many students who are not experienced or trained editors and certainly not knowledgable about professional editing practices simply write Wikipedia articles the same plagiaristic way that they write their high-school and college term papers; without concern for proper documentation rules. The purpose of adding the "fact" and "facts" templates is to indicate where plagiarized or often-invented passages need legitimate documentation if they are to remain in these articles, especially in biographies of living persons: WP:BLP. Readers of this article and this talk page (including administrators) need to review the guidelines linked in the headers at the top of this page and other article talk pages in Wikipedia. Apparently, many Wikipedia editors and even administrators really do not fully understand the meaning of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its relationship to WP:POV. I recommend that users of this page visit those links and judge for themselves before attempting to work on this and other articles in Wikipedia. [updated w/ link] --NYScholar 03:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Ok, if anyone thinks this article is unbalanced, can they list the problems here with brief bullet points (no more than 30 words each) so that editors can remedy the problem? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it was already posted here: from my talk page archive 2 (posted originally in this talk page but unjustifiably removed from it by Jayjg):

Problems of lack of neutrality (lack of balance) caused by overdependence on Daniel Pipes's own websites and presentations of his own work (related to lack of full citations format listed below)
The whole structure of this article as it currently is still needs reworking (see the structure as I revised it earlier; linked in my talk page or in this article's editing history prior to SV's reversions of that work):
- the sections are mostly out of order and illogical [They do not follow usual Wikipedia article format order; e.g., "See also" comes most logically last, prior to Wik. categories; Wikiquote misplaced, etc.]
- notes should follow text and come prior to actual "References" (for further reading, in bibliographical format)
all the citations should be fully viewable as citations: providing author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed.

[More posted above in this talk page and in my archive talk page 2; see links in my previous comment] --NYScholar 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on bullets

These are structural and formatting issues, mostly about the order of sections, not issues of "balance". What makes the article "unbalanced"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of full citations (disclosure) creates an ongoing a problem of neutrality and lack of balance (too much Pipes, too little other perspectives on Pipes); identify authors, titles, publications, places of publication, dates of publication so one can see what is actually being cited throughout (in notes, not in "external links"). Rename "references" to "notes" and one can see the problem. (Maybe you should actually read the previous discussions of these problems. I've said this now several times; apparently, you just don't get it.) See my talk page archive 2 for my perspective on your comments. Please do not reply to me personally here. I will not respond further. I've said all I have to say about these problems. They exist, and they need to be corrected, with neutrality and honesty and in good faith. --NYScholar 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How do partial citations, vs. full citations create an issue of imbalance? The sources are the same sources, regardless of how completely we identify them. If the sources are unbalanced, say so (or better yet, add balancing sources) but it is ridiculous to claim that the lack of full citations creates imbalance. Isarig 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If one cannot perceive that there is a problem of balance in the faulty presentation of "external links" as if they are all equal "references" w/ complete disregard for what they actually are, one has a problem of perception. This is it. You're all on your own. Good luck to you. You'll need it. --NYScholar 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a simple question. If you don't want to answer, that's certainly your privilege, but don't be surprise if editors subsequently revert your edits a dismiss you as a troll. Isarig 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isarig: I will not engage with you any further. You repeatedly engage in violating Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:3RR; I have fully answered the questions; apparently, you don't read my answers or click on the links to the material linked. It is a waste of my time to respond to you any further, and I refuse to do so. Do not address me directly or indirectly again. (See my general comment on my talk page archive 2 and my report in the 3RR report page. And please stop bothering me.) I refer you to the top of this page and to WP:NPA. I am not a "troll" and I have never been a "troll". See Wikipedia:Etiquette and desist. It is against Wikipedia talk guidelines to accuse other longstanding editors (as I am) of being a "troll". I have never come across any Wikipedia article where you have contributed any substantive editing change. What you do is revert other people's contributions. --NYScholar 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You have addressed what you see as "unbalanced" problems, but the rest of us would like a little elucidation on the matter. It would be best if you start small. Give a real example in the article, briefly iillustrate it, and then offer a solution we can implement. It's that easy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:58, 21 February

2007 (UTC)

As I say above, and in my talk page comments (which were moved from this talk page by another user originally without my permission or authorization and which I have saved and worked on in my talk page archive 2: I am not doing any more work on this article. All my work is already at Other references for further reading. Please read the note there. I explain that I converted the current "External links" section of this article (in its current version, which is a reverted version of my previous work) to what Wikipedia calls "full citations"--in keeping with WP:BLP. Full citations are required in this article by that policy. It is a controversial article about a living person. The sources of all statements quoted and made in it about the living person (and his works or comments about him and his work) must be fully identified in the format of full citation. You need to go to the link. It is not possible to "start small" as you ask: the entire notes and references and external links sections needed large work, that I did and one can simply click on the earlier version that was later reverted by SV to see that. Anyone can use the information that I have already provided to restore the full citations to this article. (Just take the first link currently listed in "External links" and see how it is listed in the section that I compiled for it.)

It is against Wikipedia biographies of living persons policy WP:BLP to include source references in such an article as this one as merely so-called "External links" without full citations (author, title, publication, date of publication, date accessed, possible annotation). External links are also supposed to be annotated fully. All of the now so-called "External links" are actually already converted to full citations in my above-linked talk page archive page 2. Just click on them and compare them to the "External links" and you will see that.

But I will not enter the text of this article to do that work, because I've already spent the time to do that and that work has been unjustifiably unappreciated and even maligned (by SV and Jayjg and others, who have reverted and even deleted my comments in this talk page explaining it and providing the changes). See my comment on my talk page archive 2 for how I regard what has happened in this article. As I say above, from here on, you (other editors and users) are on your own. I have done all the "elucidating" that I am able to do. It is up to you to follow the links and to compare the various versions. If you do so, you will see the importance of their differences in relation to WP:BLP and WP:Cite and WP:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, I agree with you that Wikipedia suffers from all the problems you cite, but I certainly don't find that your edits exemplify - by a long shot - ideal editing. Writing solid encyclopedic articles that comply with all the policies, standards, and best practices is hard for even the most experienced editor; but it's something most of us try to do. Most of what I've seen from you is self-righteous preaching - you might want to take that under consideration when dealing with future disagreements with other editors. --Leifern 13:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Above (and after asking me first to come here in my talk page), Viriditas asks me directly to offer "elucidation" of my changes (which were completely reverted, deleted, and wiped off this talk page by Slim Virgin, Isarig, Jayjg, and others). I have replied that I have already done that--in spades.

Leifern: you are no neutral observer here. You have the Chutzpah to accuse me of "self-righteous preaching" when I have taken immense amounts of my own time and energy to try to document the missing citations in this article (and given everyone the information via links to the archived talk page where they still reside, where I worked on them even further). I am not being "self-righteous"; what I have been doing is called doing editorial work.

Rather than exchanging jibes against other editors, why don't some of the rest of you (including Leifern) get on with doing some of the required work of documenting statements with full citations as absolutely required by WP:BLP, which links to WP:Cite: read the full content of WP:Cite and you will understand the problems of this article. I provided a format for notes, but Isarig (after asking for these citations in the editing history) and Slim Virgin et al. wiped it out; then she wants the references: well, they're already in what I produced. (Please read it.) Her format of "External links" is not what WP:BLP and WP:Cite and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require.* Every source cited in this article needs to have complete information about it listed in what is now called "References" in this article, but really needs to be renamed "Notes," with most of what are listed in various other sections properly formatted as accurate "References" in a bibliographical format called "References." That is what I have already done. Go to the link and see. I'm not doing it for this article again. People can simply cut and paste and fix this article properly. Otherwise, it will stay the POV/unbalanced mess it is. Because I am not going to be doing it for you. --NYScholar 11:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hint: Scroll up to the top of this page, click on "poorly sourced" and, guess what it goes to? "Reliable sources": meaning no message boards posts--see SV's list of "External links" again: can you tell from reading the links and the descriptions whether or not they are "reliable sources"? Each one needs to be checked, verified as notable and reliable, and then listed properly as a full citation: WP:Cite. The very few items in "References" ("Notes") need to have all those others added to them. The only item relevant to keeping in a section called "External links" in this article on "Daniel Pipes" is one link: to his personal website, which links to "Daniel Pipes's websites"; that's it. (For illustration: See my linked User talk:NYScholar/Archive 2#Other_references_for_further_reading for the information (again if you've ever even looked at it before.) If those of you claiming to be interested in "editing" this article and making it conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view don't do that, then you just aren't interested in editing this article, and you don't belong here at all. This is not a discussion forum about the subject. (Scroll up to top of page once more.) --NYScholar 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hint: Click on the Other references for further reading (again). The Notes format I started days ago now was reverted by SV; you have to go to editing history to find it. (See [3].) Most of the numbered external links may already be listed in the "Other references for further reading" list (assuming that the "Notes" are still called "References") that I've produced from current "External links" section and weirdly-presented previous lists in the article. --NYScholar 12:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated: just want to remind people looking at the old reverted version of the Notes and References that many of those were originally incorrect; they were misleadingly presented as "External links" which came from Pipes's site, but I later corrected them (in current talk page archive 2 version of those sources): what I did is checked each one, and collected the full citation information from them (author, title, publication, date of publication) and added date I accessed it. So some of the items that initially appeared to be written by Pipes and listed as "works by" him turned out to be written by other people and published elsewhere originally and just rpt. on his website. So I straightened that all out and put them in proper subsections of References list, now called "Other references for further reading". I got reverted too many times to be able to provide the full citations for each of the notes that are just numbered links in the current text and in my "Notes" format version. All that work will still need to be done for the current numbered links throughout the text of this article. Each numbered link still needs to become a full citation and added as a note (with proper coding for a footnote).^[1] I won't do it, but it is possible for others to do it. I wouldn't touch the text of this article again with a ten-foot pole (so to speak). But I've provided all the references that are still just in the "External links" section and some of the earlier reference sections (that are largely incomplete references). The details are in the talk page archive 2 linked above. --NYScholar 09:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments posted in March 2007 [deleted from current talk page by another user; do not delete other users' comments from talk pages; they are part of the talk pages; archived here]:

Archiving of this page cut off still current, post-January 2007 comments and left the January 2007 comments

[Note: Archive page 1 is headed "This is the 2003-2004 archive," yet it included material from post 2004, 2005, 2006, and even 2007. [I scrolled down and found some other headings, but it is very confusing. It has two Januarys, with no year date to distinguish them. Each month needs to be followed by a date; viewed online, it is hard to know what year each month relates to.] Some of that archive needs to be organized more clearly, so that the dates for 2005 and 2006 are clear; it probably needs another separate archive page for 2005-2006; but even that is problematic, because some 2006 (and earlier) comments already have responses posted in quite recently after January 2007. The archive of page 1 needs work. Some of that material might also need to be restored to this current talk page, because it has recent comments. See below. --NYScholar 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)]

This archiving created a misimpression of comments on this article. The comments on the article were missing between January 1, 2007, and now (March 2007), therefore. It is customary to archive talk pages chronologically. I re-factored the archiving because it had put the current comments from January 2007 through February 2007 in a page listing comments from 2005 (-2006? There were two Januarys listed followed by no clear indications of years for them). Note: I have updated references used in this article in full citations in Other references for Further Reading. This material includes items currently listed only as numbered external links throughout the article and also only in the "External links" section. --NYScholar 02:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) My comments have to do with the documentation of sources in this article (content of the article). --NYScholar 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the earlier material from 2005 to 2006 can be moved to archive page 1 in appropriate month and year sections; but that format is also confusing because sometimes people add comments in 2006 and even later (2007) to topics first begun in 2005 and/or 2006, meaning that they are still currently pertinent. Trying to remove currently-applicable comments on form and content of an article by deleting them from a current talk page and moving them to an archive of mostly 2005 comments misleads readers of this article and its talk page. It also violates WP:AGF. Pages are usually archived in whole in sections (one after another, chronologically), not re-factored into chronological talk page headings that don't match the content of an archived talk page. The archive talk page number one completely changes the way the comments were originally posted by many different users over a long period of time. It misleadingly leaves much older comments on the current page (scroll up) that one would expect to find archived (in archive page one) under some appropriate date heading there now. Anyone trying to follow the history of discussion about this article will have a hard time doing so, unless the talk page is archived properly, with the older material coming first. --NYScholar 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments pertaining to the current tag concerning reference problem on the article

These comments are on the current version of the content of this article. So do not delete this comment (dated March 1, 2007) from this talk page. It is still pertinent to the talk page and to the content of the article and to the content of the talk page of the article. --NYScholar 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is referred to in ongoing disputes and my comments, which are still currently applicable to the content of this article, need to be accessible by Wikipedia users and administrators trying to find them. The comments concern the content of this article. --NYScholar 03:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC) N.B.: My archived Daniel Pipes talk page February 2007 comments (previously archived by Slim Virgin in talk page 1) are now in Archive 2 of Talk:Daniel Pipes. I also added the archive box, to which additional archive pages can be added in the future. (One can see the format in editing mode.) (updated) --NYScholar 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pertaining to the current tag on the article (added by another editor; my earlier attempts to tag the article as "unbalanced" and "unreferenced" were continually reverted by Isarig, Jayjg, Slim Virgin, et al.): Scroll up to the "controversial" tag heading: "This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles." This policy pertains to this article and the way references are being provided in it. Thus, it still needs "full citations." --NYScholar 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[Note: Despite my courteous request not to remove the above comments from the current talk page, the administrator removed them anyway. I have linked to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding such administrative actions (which I think are abuses of approved administrative behavior) in the current talk page. Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator abuse; WP:ANOT. Notice how the administrator has re-factored the current talk page so misleadingly that it includes old comments from 2006, deletes more-recent and more-currently-relevant comments from February 2007 and March 2007, and fails to include most comments critical of the article and is not representative of recent comments questioning the content of the article. --NYScholar 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/Talk%7EDaniel_Pipes_archive2_77fe.html"

Category: Talk archives