Talk:Unholy Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Callahan's Review

This:

  • "Unholy Alliance" a review of American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, a book by Kevin Phillips

is signficantly different from this:

Phillips, Kevin (2006) American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, Viking Press.

in that there is no outside link and, so, the first should be allowable. Note, after I pointed that out and made the change, User:Ezeu threatened a 3RR block, saying (now) the review is not notable. How can this be a 3RR when the only true reverts are his, and my one (to one of his) is edits to address HIS concerns? (Also, the notability issue seems very strange considering the review is on a PBS Religion & Ethics website, and the author is an ordained Baptist minister with a PhD from Harvard who's written 2 books on religion.) 63.98.135.196 00:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The book review is not notable enough to warrant mention on a disambiguation page, let alone have a Wikipedia article. Not even the reviewed book, or even the person who wrote the review has a Wikipedia article. Create an article about Allen Dwight Callahan and mention the book review there. And 63.98.135.196 aka MBHiii, stop accusing me of having "opposed the original article", all I did was enforce the AfD and subsequent DRV. --Ezeu 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess you didn't read what you deleted. Both the reviewed book AND its author have Wikipedia articles that specifically mention Callahan's review. 63.98.135.196 00:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The man who wrote the book has an article, not the man who wrote a review about the book. --Ezeu 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are making light of a very heavy hitter (Callahan) in his field (religion and its political uses and abuses). Recall: Harvard PhD, two books, Ivy League faculty position, and invited guest commentator on PBS (no doubt for his expertise). Also, I never accused you having "opposed..."; recently, it's User:Avraham who opposed the original article and has been causing problems with this page. 63.98.135.196 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't percieve that upholding wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines for redirects and disambig pages is "causing problems". You may wish to review the appropriate policies, including those on civility. Thank you. -- Avi 01:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see, you incorrectly caused at least two speedy deletions and made erroneous deletions to this and other pages. I find those who have the most to say about civility frequently have trouble grasping its true meaning, don't you? (Take a deep breath; think something pleasant.)

Anyway, the book is significant, the author is significant, the reviewer is a heavy hitter in his field, cited in both articles, and the ref on the dab page contains no outside links, as User:JLaTondre requested. The subject is overwhelmingly significant, and timely, and any assertion to the contrary just seems personal POV. 63.98.135.196 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if all of the above is true, in cases like this it is advised to create an article (and not a stub) on both Allen Dwight Callahan and his review before menioning it in any disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages switch between existing articles, not point to red links (you arrive there looking for content, not looking to create content). Maurog 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What "other" definitions?

There are none. "Coalition among apparently antagonistic groups, especially if one is religious, for ad hoc or hidden gain" covers all instances on the page, either directly or in parody (esp. the 2nd & 3rd). 68.221.0.14 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}} As per the above, request restoration of version: 16:05, 12 April 2007. MBHiii 16:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • To the admin considering this request. I personally cannot refuse this suggestion, as I am involved in this content dispute but please see the history of this page as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unholy Alliance where there seems to be a concerted effort to push a particular definition into wikipedia, which was deleted. Trying to get this definition on the disambig page seems to me to be an example of gaming the system. -- Avi 18:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
To repeat, there is no other definition. No one (including you) has proposed one. Short definitions are encouraged on WP:DAB pages. MBHiii 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I too must voice my objection to reverting to this "definition". It has been removed by multiple editors on this page, as well as the same definition on the disambiguation pages for Alliance and Unholy. You are the only editor who insists on putting this "definition" in the dab pages. Furthermore, the entries listed on this dab page are:
  • Television episode
  • Wrestling tag team
  • Music tour
  • 5 books
  • 2 phrases
Not a single one of these is a "coalition among apparently antagonistic groups", the only two that are groups at all are clearly cooperative, and while the books may or may not discuss such coalitions they are not coalitions themselves and thus their definition is "book". Your "definition" of "Unholy Alliance" was duly deleted by process, upheld in a DRV review, and trying to attach it to this and other dab pages is inappropriate. This is an editorial dispute in which the majority of editors has agreed on removing this definition. Arkyan • (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
One by one: The first refers to a fantasied instance of the definition. The next two are parodies. The last seven refer to actual or intended instances.

This is directed to you both. Your continued vehemence and persistence in apparently trying to get this topic killed, first as an article, then as a redirect, now as a short definition, seems strange and disproportionate. At http://concise.britannica.com/search?query=unholy+alliance there is

international relations - At the Cannes Conference (January 1922) the Allies searched for common ground on reparations, a security pact, and Lloyd George's scheme for a grand economic conference including Soviet Russia. But the French chamber rebelled, and Briand was replaced as prime minister by the wartime president, Poincare. A hard-headed lawyer from Lorraine, Poincare was determined to relieve France's triple crisis ... But the Soviets refused to recognize the tsarist regime's prewar debts and then shocked the Allies by signing the Treaty of Rapallo (April 16) with Germany, an innocuous document (providing for annulment of past claims and restoration of diplomatic relations) that nonetheless appeared to signal an unholy alliance between the two European outcasts. ...

and

science, philosophy of - This survey has been concerned, almost exclusively, with philosophical problems and arguments about the sciences regarded as sources of theoretical knowledge. In pitting Realism against instrumentalism, mechanistic ideas against organicist ones, divine knowledge against human fallibility, or Platonic Ideas against Aristotelian essences, the philosopher is in each case concerned with the ... On the contrary (they argue), there is a long-standing and unholy alliance linking the collective institutions of the scientific and technological professions to the economic, industrial, and political powers that be. ...

So, I challenge the two of you to come up with a better short definition that covers these and the uses on the DAB page. Until then, the one I request is more than adequate. MBHiii 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Your persistence in trying to inject this definition in spite of losing the argument in varied and repeated instances is equally baffling to me. That it was rejected at AfD, rejected on DRV, rejected as a unilateral redirect, and further has been edited out of multiple dab pages by multiple editors (not just myself and Avi) should say something about the appropriateness of its usage here - or apparent lack thereof. Please re-read the information on the WP:DAB page regarding definitions : " A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context" (emphasis added). Can be hardly equates to "encouraged" as you are insisting, and certainly does not mean that short definitions are a requirement of dab pages - most, in fact, don't have one at all. WP:MOSDAB says nothing at all regarding the utility of short definitions. The removal of a selected definition does not require the replacement with something more appropriate. Arkyan • (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I concede your qualifiaction of emphasis; nonetheless, it is the only short definition anyone has proposed, and it covers all uses on the DAB page and Britannica. MBHiii 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have disabled the editprotected tag. When a page isprotected for edit warring, it is generally inappropriate for admins to start reverting it to previous versions. Once the disputes are resolved, the page will be unprotected, and you will be able to edit it again. Until then, it should stay as it is. This general policy is not an endorsement of the current content. CMummert · talk 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some history: I'm trying to reintroduce the original (and only) definition that displayed for a long time at the top of the original article, until I started added examples and instances and writing about them. My one about "Baptists and Bootleggers" started the firestorm with religionists and conservatives of all sorts weighing in. The professor I cited for that, Yandle, has (since the original article was deleted) been corresponding with me about using that term for the "Baptists and Bootleggers" ("strange bedfellows" is his preferred at the moment). Most of the other unholy alliances I had in the article are there now on the DAB page -- I'm sure much to the annoyance of those originally opposed. This is why others must get involved, to reconsider the sense of restoring the original definition and other examples for display, because, it seems, these people will not. (Please, feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong on any of this.) Incidentally, I notice "strange bedfellows" appears in some Wikipedia titles. It would be good to start a DAB page for that, too, with a short definition at the top. Don't you all agree? MBHiii 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe if you read the first line of your statement you'll see the crux of the problem we have here : I'm trying to reintroduce the original (and only) definition. As I have stated before, this definition has been rejected by community consensus on several occasions and in several different formats. Part of working on a community-based project is to realize when you are in the minority and the community consensus believes otherwise? Please read up on WP:CONSENSUS. It's not a majority rules format, but there comes a point when you must concede an issue. It is obvious you feel strongly about your viewpoint, but rather than persist in trying to reintroduce the material on your own when it is simply reverted or challenged by other editors, why not abide by consensus? If you feel strongly that the consensus reached in the AfD, DRV and other debates is not reflective of community consensus then by all means, have you considered other dispute resolution processes such as requesting outside opinion via WP:RFC?
I feel that consensus was clear in the original deletion debate, it was upheld when you appealed to deletion review, and has been continuously reiterated by the editors on this and related articles. It is difficult to argue that this is not a reflection of community consensus, but if you insist otherwise then I am open to seeking additional comment as mentioned above. However if we are going to go that route then it has to be understood that if it doesn't go the way you want you have to accept consensus at some point and stop with the unending appeals and attempts to inject the defnintion in another way. Doing so would be disruptive. There must come a point when you have to concede defeat and abide by consensus and realize that sometimes you are wrong, no matter how much you may feel otherwise. Arkyan • (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to wiktionary definition

I have removed the {{wiktionary}} from this page. I am not familiar with the policies and procedures over at Wiktionary or if the "definition" over there passes their inclusion standards, but a quick look at it here reveals that it is identical to the definition that one particular user has attempted time and time again to push here on this article. Creating this unsourced, unverified and POV definition on Wiktionary and subsequently linking it here is clearly an attempt to game the system and defy consensus. The consensus on this talk page has been unquestionably against the inclusion of this definition on this article and trying to sneak it in via Wiktionary is clearly disingenuous. This is one case where I can no longer assume good faith as the user in question has a history of defying consensus and trying to sneak this information here in various forms and under various anon ip edits. The consensus on this issue has been overwhelmingly clear : this definition does not belong. I will revert any attempts to re-add this spurious definition and if necessary request page protection to ensure the consensus decision on this article is upheld. Arkyan • (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please reverse this decision to exclude {{wiktionary}} from the page. The definition there is neither unsourced nor unverified, and consistent with the POV of TR and the literary uses cited. The apparent consensus against its inclusion seems to be to the exclusion of useful, easily verifiable, uncontroversial facts. -MBHiii (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

N Not done. An edit war over this is apparently why it was protected in the first place. —Random832 14:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What consensus?

Tyranny of a (small homogeneous) majority is de Tocqueville's main criticism of American ideas of democracy. The Roosevelt dispute may be an example. What's wrong with linking to TR's historically significant and oft-quoted uses of unholy alliance? (example) 63.98.135.196 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is that there are 4 editors who are removing the content versus 1 editor who keeps trying to put it back in. Call it a tyranny of the majority if you insist but when the majority feels the content you are trying to add does not belong .. that's called consensus. Your given example is also useless - the origin of that "definition", if you read your example closely, is Wikipedia itself, the old version of this article that was deleted some time ago and subsequently upheld at a deletion review. Again, consensus. What is wrong with pasting a quote from Roosevelt on a dab page? Because dab pages are not repositories for quotes and examples of the use of a term. It is not a dictionary page, it is not an encyclopedia article, it is a navigational aid to disambiguate between topics of a similar name and "selected quotes" have no place at a dab page. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I say we permanently semi-protect this page and call it a day. • Maurog • 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. A protection request on this page was recently declined, although recent activity might make for a better case. The influx of anon edits all reverting the same edit is more than a little suspicious. They all originate from either BellSouth's Raleigh-Morgan ADSL pool, or from servers belonging to Applied Research Associates. Same applies for virtually all of the anon edits to this article. Given the style of comments and the edit in question, as well as the fact that both Raleigh and ARA can be linked to Mbhiii from the information on his userpage it's fairly evident that he's back and making these edits while logged out. As was the case before, one single editor trying to push his POV on an article (or this case, dab page) so semi-protection to prevent his anonymous editing would allow for the issue to be resolved with him directly. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess full protection is better than none at all... • Maurog • 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)