Talk:Carl Dix

message: Prior comments have talked about how this article needed a lot of work. It also has not been up to Wiki standards -- accurate and objective comments, references, etc. I agree and have done a complete rewrite of the piece.
I've tried to document the main sources I've drawn on, but there are places that need further citation. I will try to do those soon.
EnRealidad (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You mostly used primary resources, inappropriate for a BLP.  -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Rewrite on December 10, 2011

message: This has to be the worst written page on Wikipedia.
This article needs to be drastically re-written or deleted.
:Doesnt look so bad to me. Just needs more info. Its a bit of a stub. Maybe add his picture and some other details. What do you see as wrong with it? Giovanni33 09:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prior notes

message: There are no sources, and this person is not notable.  I proposed deletion.
1 November 2010
---  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.162.45 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: I made some major edits to the article attempting to make it WP:NPOV.  However, this article still relies too heavily on a primary sources that are rather close to the subject.  The external links situation has been fixed.  Maybe this article should be merged with the RCP,USA article altogether.  --Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Little bit of work

message: Carl Dix is an extreme left-wing activist. As such, he and his public appearances, writings and activities have been ignored by the mainstream media. Thus there are few published sources outside of the RCP publications to which he himself has contributed, that document his history. This problem applies to many in revolutionary movements, which may be considered "fringe" elements by some, but may have made significant contributions within a community with potential long-term significance. These completely political and biased considerations should not prevent information about him from being presented on Wikipedia or any other site. The idea of banning primary sources is absurd. Real historians will tell you the only real sources are primary sources- why are they discriminated against on Wikipedia? Do you think if someone has not re-tweeted it, it is stupid? This is exactly the wrong approach to providing accurate information.
I can tell you, as someone who knew and worked with Carl Dix 40 years ago, who has followed his career ever since, and who has an impeccable record of peer-reviewed publications (check Theodore Wensel on Google Scholar) that what is on this page is more accurate than what is on most pages based on non-primary sources. I do not know whether Dix was arrested with Avakian or not in this or that year, but if you ask him, he will give you an honest answer, and you can easily check with Bob Avakian as well. These people may be old, and they may not troll Wikipedia daily, but they do email and are honest.Twensel (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a soap box.  It only presents information that is verifiable by reliable secondary sources. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments