Vasser24

Welcome and suggestion

My interest in the Port Huron Statement is trivial, but I notice the article is not well supported by reliable references. A Wikipedia article is not supposed to take a point of view on its own, but must report the points of view held by reliable sources. WE can't, for example, use quotations from the statement itself and say that this shows the SdS thought thus-and-so - but if we can find a book where someone says what the statement means, that can be referenced and included.

So, to make edits that stick, find some scholarly discussion of the topic and reference the stuffing out of it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Participatory Democracy

Please discuss article text on talk pages where everyone can contribute. Please do not refer to parts of articles as being your possessions. Tb (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Port Huron Statement

The racist remarks I was referring to were "Even today in most parts of the world, including Africa, violent racial and tribal competition is taken for granted, or at least not given a second thought. One could just as easily argue that black Americans are very fortunate to have been brought to the wealthiest and most free country in the world, even against their will." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizobullet (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying telling some black people you know that "they're fortunate their ancestors were kidnapped and enslaved, so that they could live in the wealthiest and most free country in the world" and tell me how it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizobullet (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I never even said America was "so racist", I just said *you* were racist for saying that slavery was a good thing. Schizobullet (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oikophobia

I see that you restored your version with no explanation of why you were doing so. Please see WP:OWN and WP:OR. Scruton did not coin the term and he certainly does not discuss Means. If you don't like the changes, please discuss them on the talk page. Thank you.

You deleted an entire article because the term "oikophobia" was used before? In the 19th century? Why didn't you simply add this information with proper cites? You are vandalizing this page, Weller. Also, who said he discusses Russell Means? The point of the article is to explain as succinctly as possible what Roger Scruton is attempting to say without actually reading him. Using Means or Iowahawk to shed light on his definition of Oikophobia, as I see it, is perfectly sound.

No, it's what we call original research, I asked you to read WP:OR, have you. You can't do this, it's against our basic policies. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And the point of the article should not be to discuss Scruton - we have an article on him, the point of the article should be oikophobia, which isn't a term he invented. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is quoting from a book original research? I read the linked article. I do not see how this violates "original research". Original research, according to the article, is "not already published by reliable sources". Means's book is reliable since he wrote it and only he can describe his spiritual awakening.

I'm describing Scruton's definition of oikophobia; which is existential, i.e., alienation from Judeo-Christianity. Russell Means, being AmerIndian, is a good example of someone alienated from the dominant culture which, oddly enough, happens to be Judeo-Christian/European.

Also, why did you delete James Taranto in Usage? Isn't the Wall Street Journal a reliable source?

"And the point of the article should not be to discuss Scruton": I'm not discussing Scruton any more than you are discussing Robert Southey. The only difference is that Scruton hasn't been dead for years but is actively writing and is an important thinker, who doesn't trivialize oikophobia. I suspect that's your primary objection, isn't it?Vasser24 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Being live or dead is utterly irrelevant. The article is supposed to over the usage and meaning(s) of a word. That means it should show how it evolved usages over history and its several current usages. Southey popularised it, but it is used in this and in alternate spellings in medical literature up to today. Southey is making a wider cultural point about English wanderlust and Scruton is doing much the same - appropriating the term as an ideological tool to bash postmodernists and leftists. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"to bash postmodernists and leftists" - You are giving away your bias. Thanks.Vasser24 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Southey is making a wider cultural point about English wanderlust and Scruton is douing much the same" - You are making a fool of yourself, Mr. B.Vasser24 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I rather think you are the one who is achieving that effect. Scruton is doing the "much the same" because he is making a wider cultural point which fits his own pet preoccupations - which includes attacking postmodernists and leftists. There's no bias in that statement. I'm sure Scruton himself would agree with it. Or do you think he supports postmodernism and left-wing politics? Paul B (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I went to the Racism article (without a doubt one of the ugliest and longest I have seen, full of hatred for European culture and people) and there on the right hand side is a sidebar entitled "Discrimination". Not surprisingly, the term xenophobia is listed as part of the sinister dark side but not its flip side, no oikophobia. I am saying that there is something a little out of joint here. A little biased maybe. Even systematic bias. Shouldn't Roger Scruton and the politically incorrect have their say? Its the censorship here by experienced editors that troubles me. Attempting to trivialize oikophobia, especially in light of the multitude of problems multiculturalism has unleashed on the West, is not only the path to ignorance but is increasingly dangerous to law-abidding citizens.

Xenophobia is a very well-known term (6,840,000 google hits). Oikophobia is much more obscure (7,440 hits) and is not in widespread usage. It's hardly surprising that it's not present in the infobox, as it is a rather marginal concept. While there are isolated exmples of its usage, it's not a term that has really caught on. No-one wishes to weaken the article, but we have to reflect actual usage. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You missed the others: ableism=71,000; heightism=20,000; lookism=41,500; etc.Vasser24 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't miss anything, since I was responding to the example you gave. However, even those ridiculous concepts get far more hits. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"The article is supposed to over the usage and meaning(s) of a word." - Here I'll agree with you, Mr. B. Curiously, the section heading entitled "Usage" was deleted by Weller. Why?

Usage

James Taranto, Oikophobia, Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting, Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2010:

If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.

Kuro5hin: technology and culture from the trenches, Oikophobia; antonym: Xenophobia, By anaesthetica in anaesthetica's Diary, Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:41:05 AM EST:

A chronic form of oikophobia has spread through the American universities, in the guise of political correctness, and loudly surfaced in the aftermath of September 11th, to pour scorn on the culture that allegedly provoked the attacks, and to side by implication with the terrorists.

Eunomia: Clearing the East of Christianity: Ignorance, Oikophobia or Alienation from Christianity?, July 1, 2006

. . . so we are either seeing an outpouring of oikophobia with respect to our Christian brethren, a startling demonstration of American ignorance, or a widespread admission that “we” are not really like the Christians of the Near East but apparently have more in common with their persecutors with whom we unwittingly or knowingly align ourselves.

2 Blowhards, Roger Scruton and Oikophobia:

Scruton also invents a nifty new word -- "oikophobia" -- to fight back against those who use terms like "racism" and "xenophobia" to stifle legitimate discussion of important matters.

Muck and Mystery: I'm Late, I'm Late: June 24, 2006:

The recent exposure of U.S. anti-terrorist methods by journalists - though not illegal, immoral or fattening - seems an example of U.S. quasi-leftist, pseudo-intellectual oikophobia. The intellectual neoteny of oikophobics is striking."

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Oikophobia has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. TwistOfCain ^(talk) 22:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oikophobia. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Oikophobia constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Oikophobia. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You and your buddies are the vandals, pal.--Vasser24 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Oikophobia. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Oikophobia

Rather than just blocking, and to stop all this reverting, I have protected this page for a week - this is a week that I suggest you discuss the page's future on its talk page, and come to a consensus of what should be included in the article.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Oikophobia. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. On this talk page and edit summaries - please do not call other editors vandals unless they meet the criteria at WP:VANDAL Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1) You put a 19th century one-paragraph reference to the term oikophobia above Scruton's.

2) You deleted 9/10s of an article that has been published for over one year and is now number 1 on Google for oikophobia.

3) You deleted without any attempt to discuss your actions or allow me the opportunity to defend myself. When I did, I'm accused of vandalizing the very article I wrote.

4) You and three others colluded in your attack, which has no merit whatsoever.

Now you are hiding behind strawman arguments about original research. Who are you trying to kid?Vasser24 (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the ownership question. If this is no big deal, I'd like a list of the articles written by my opponents. Surely, this can be done in a collegial manner since you don't own them.

I know what you are up to. You are attempting to stifle an idea you find irksome. Namely the alienation of intellectuals (who dey?) and artists (in the West) from their own culture. You are deliberately missing the point of Scruton's existential definition and the point of the article and are attempting to trivialize the original ideas presented in a well-researched and cited manner. Otherwise, why trivialize Scruton and delete the Taranto link?Vasser24 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have opponents it is only because of your attitude, you are creating any opponents you may have by these attacks. No original research is part of our fundamental policy, it's no strawman. If you want to discuss the article, do it on the article talk page. As I said there, I concentrate in my editing on rewriting and sourcing articles. Very rarely I create one, usually a short one hoping someone will find it worthwhile expanding, such as Sabatino Moscati. There are more articles of interest to me that I want to improve then there are articles I want to write.

Wikipedia is a collaborative work, and you need to work with others. Attacking people and ignoring our policies and guidelines won't get you anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from your provocative behaviour if you wish to avoid future reactions such as mine. I would further suggest that if you object to an article you show the author common courtesy by contacting him in the discussion page first and explain your position and reasons for this or that deletion. Why does such an idea seem so strange? You decided to bulldoze this article and it appears to be a well-developed technique here involving more than one person. When you aggressively put someone on the defensive what do you expect? Maybe you're used to cringing brainwashed college students?Vasser24 (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I used edit summaries, which is the normal and suggested way of making changes. As we discourage any suggestion of ownership of articles, it isn't appropriate to have a discussion on the original creator's talk page. I haven't done anything aggressive, rewriting articles goes on all the time. I haven't called you any names, whereas you continue to attack me personally. I'm sorry if you are upset but that's no excuse for name calling. Maybe you should accept that you are a very inexperienced editor (we all started that way) and that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. I've pointed you to some of our guidelines and polices and I really do suggest that you read them, and try to work in a cooperative way with other editors even when you disagree with them. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Texas (1865–1899)

I really do not understand what you thought you were doing with these two edits: [1]. An IP (now blocked as a vandal) deleted some text, making nonsense out of the paragraph, he/she was reverted by an editor with whom you are having a disagreement, and you then deleted the same text the IP deleted, making the paragraph nonsense again. Why did you do this? Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Why did you do this?" Too much Merlot.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for For edit warring and section blanking, particularly on Participatory democracy. Now will you stop and discuss what you are trying to get at with Oikophobia.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet the number of Google hits for "oikophobia" before the Taranto article was less than a quarter what it is now. Is there a way to find out? Strange isn't it how several editors decided to gut it now. One would have to be gullible not to question the timing. Could it be they wanted to stifle interest by trivializing the meaning of oikophobia coined by Roger Scruton and publicized by James Taranto in The Wall Street Journal? No one has yet explained to me why the Taranto link was yanked (along with the Usage section and the Background section which comprised 9/10ths of the article). No one has adequately explained why I'm not allowed to reference and quote specific citations in reliable sources that illustrate Scruton's definition of oikophobia.

Doug Weller's admonishment that " Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." could not possibly apply to the original article since cites with page numbers are supplied. I asked him "Do you mean the cites must contain the term oikophobia?" Yes, he answered. Many, many articles in Wikipedia do not do this, including Participatory Democracy and Xenophobia. [Example: There are three cites used for participatory democracy: none of them link to the term "participatory democracy" by actually using the term. By the way, isn't the Tea Party participatory democracy? I have repeatedly attempted to insert, and insert only, David Horowitz's article from Salon specifically mentioning "participatory democracy" and it has been deleted time and time again.]

"Using [Russell] Means as an example without relying on a source linking him with oikophobia is original research, it is your interpretation, and as editors that's not our role." This is preposterous. There are thousands of cases where authors and editors write about the meaning of xenophobia, a Participatory Democracy, etc. without even bothering with sources. How can you describe an idea without making allusions? In the Racism article there are actual illustrations supposedly describing racism. Aren't these photos and artwork interpretations without using the word racism? Aren't they supporting and elaborating on the theme of racism? What on earth is the difference if I use small extracts from Russell Means biography, Hegel, Karl Marx, Iowahawk, Chipps Theories of Modern Art, to illustrate the nature of oikophobia? Aren't the busy-as-a-beaver Writers for Racism doing the same thing and taking up ten times the space?

Shouldn't the rules apply equally to ideas regardless of how politically correct they may or may not be?Vasser24 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I knew nothing about the Taranto article when I started editing Oikophobia - I didn't even know who he was. You are continuing to attack editors and refusing to allow the possibility that they are just trying to improve an article. I can't speak for the others, but it may be that like me they were just trying to make a better article on Oikophobia. I've said before, if you want to push Scruton's views on this the best place is probably in his article, but you still need to avoid OR. If you want to continue to justify your approach to OR, go to WP:RSN and see if you can get others to agree. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I knew nothing about the Taranto article when I started editing Oikophobia - Did someone set u up?

I've never even heard of Taranto. This is a completely ridiculous paranoid conspiracy fantasy. If you stop jumping to wildly implausible conclusions and instead listen to what people are saying, then the article will end up improved and more informative. However, I don't see why Taranto's article should not be mentioned. What 'reliable sources' discussing Scruton have been deleted? Paul B (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't use the term "discussing Scruton". I said, " . . . reliable sources that illustrate Scruton's definition of oikophobia."Vasser24 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Then you aren't saying that reliable sources discussing Scruton have been deleted? Fine. But you can't use reliable sources illustrating Scruton's definition unless they specifically mention Scruton. But I think you know that now. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what in your mind is the difference between "discussing Scruton" and illustrating his definition, however your personal ideas about what links up with Scruton's thought are "original research" (OR). Direct discussion of Scruton's views, such as Mark Dooley, are fine. The reason why Wikipedia rejects OR is epitomised by your essay. Highly questionable views are presented as authoritative. The main problem with your version was the stuff about Hegel, Russell Means and the rather confusing attempt to address Marx's theory of alienation. It was not even clear whether Means was supposed epitomise oikophobia or its rejection. Since Means apparently rejected the "dominant culture" of "the white man's tribe" - the very Western values that Scruton valorises - he can be called an "oikophobe" who essentially rejected the culture he really inherited in favour of largely imagined ancestral alternative. Is that very different from the alleged "liberals" who supposedly find "Americans revolting" and laud other cultures according to Taranto? As for your arguments about Marx, it's not at all clear what you are trying to say. You are interpreting primary sources and pursuing arguments with unrelated - and rather poor - secondary ones, such as a blog by someone called Iowahawk who never even mentions Marx. Paul B (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Highly questionable views are presented as authoritative." - This reminds me of an earlier comment by Doug Weller concerning "balance." Trying to find balance is like trying to decide who gets to be dictator. If you could have come to it with a better way to describe this particular definition of a curious modern phenomena which Scruton labels Oikophobia and Taranto agrees with in part, I would welcome it. I dig deeper than Taranto to what I think Scruton and Mark Dooley are trying to get at - the negation (by a sizable percent of elites) of Judeo-Christian, and hence, European culture. This is an existential phenomena that precedes action. I, of course, am not Roger Scruton and can only hope that interested people by reading this article will be drawn to him to learn more. Or if not to him, possibly Iowahawk. This, as I see it, is no different than anything others do when attempting to describe a word which describes human behaviour like, say, xenophobia.

The use of Means, Hegel, Marx, Iowahawk is an interpretation just as is exhibiting a poster of "racism". Although, when I do it its not derogatory to Christians or Europeans. This is upsetting to certain people.

If you read Doug Hill's comments at the Oikophobia discussion you'll see, to me, a healthier approach. Other people also added the bits about adolescence and the clinical definition. I see nothing wrong with this.

"Is that very different from the alleged "liberals" who supposedly find "Americans revolting" and laud other cultures according to Taranto?" - No. Russell Means refers to white Americans as racists. Whether he believes this or not I have no idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 November 2010

"Trying to find balance is like trying to decide who gets to be dictator." Wow. Do you think this is profound? It sure is not. Trying to find balance means giving due weight to a variety of views - and that's the antithesis of what you imply. I've no idea what 'poster of racism' you are referring to, but your interpretations are certainly more than mere rewording of sources. Paul B (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what 'poster of racism' you are referring to - go to Racism there are a lot of images which are used to illustrate this apparently obsessive and unique feature of European culture.Vasser24 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Referring to supposed shortcomings in other articles does not help us to resolve problems with the article in question. Racism is a big subject and I'm sure nmany editors argue over the content of the article. Join them if you wish to. We are discussing Oikophobia. Paul B (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)