Talk:G. David Schine

message: I have restored the quote parameter to the references. You can reread what I wrote above, or I can cut and paste it again. The quote parameter is there to use. Your counterargument appears to be that original author may be lying in what they wrote, so we should not use the quote function. You wrote: "The only imaginable use the quote you mention above has is that it proves the source says what the article claims it says. And it doesn't even "prove" that, since if the article is lying about where the information can be found, it could just as easily be lying about the quoted content. So the quote serves no purpose at all." I don't buy it as a valid argument, Wikipedia isn't about truth its about verifiability. I suggest you reach consensus here on the talk page before you delete my additions again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to reach a consensus here. If you would respond to my points, as I have responded to yours, that might help us make progress. To reiterate, my overall point is that just shoveling irrelevant and out-of-context words into an article doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. If you can explain how your added quotes are relevant, how they add something useful or interesting to the article, then I'll withdraw my objection. As it is, all you've said is that "the quote parameter is there to use." This isn't a test where you'll be marked down for not filling in a blank; because the parameter is there doesn't mean you have to fill it in. You also said "Wikipedia isn't about truth its about verifiability." I don't understand how this applies--your additions don't make the article any more "verified"--so perhaps you could expand on that. RedSpruce (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration

message: Someone must be in need of extra Wiki stimulation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see again, RAN. Now that you're here, perhaps you could give some reasons for keeping those footnote quotes. Although we've discussed the issue before, you never did manage to give anything resembling a reason. RedSpruce (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again

message: I don't see this reference supporting the sentence, Am I missing something?
He remained active in the private sector as a businessman and an entrepreneur, working in the hotel, music, and film industries, and he was a founding member of the Young Presidents' Organization.
:I'd say you're not missing anything. Contrary to some of your various insult/fantasies above, I haven't contributed very much to this article and I don't claim "ownership." I wasn't the one to insert this text and footnote and I don't know anything about the YPO. I seem to remember checking this reference in the past, so its content may have changed since it was inserted.
:BTW, your change to the lede is in poor and awkward English, misuses a comma and suggests that Schine was an army private throughout his life, or at least his adult life. The earlier version was better and more correct. RedSpruce (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Note to self: Here is a possible reference, it will have to wait until I buy another subscription to the archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible reference

message: Instead of just getting your jollies reversing my additions, why don't you actually vet the references used in the article. All your reversing of my vetting of the article, didn't spot the incorrect reference used in the article. I was the one that spotted it, by actually reading each reference to see if supported the text, and adding the proper quote if the text was supported by the citation. Isn't that be a better use of time, and a better service to Wikipedia readers. Instead you are just guarding your version of the article, and endlessly filibustering over aesthetics, instead of fact checking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for your continued exercise in moronic insults, RAN. You are a bastion of consistency in an otherwise turbulent world. RedSpruce (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid using words like "moronic."  Wikipedia is a community and while members of this community may disagree, please do not escalate tensions by using confrontational terms.  Thank you.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The short form of WP:No Personal Attacks is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." RAN has been flouting this guideline with relentless persistence in his insult/fantasies about my motivations in opposing some of his edits. Note here, here, here, here, here and (immediately above) here. If you're going to complain about incivility, please do not take sides and only complain about one party (in this case, the far-less-guilty party).  Thank you. Sincerely, RedSpruce (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: Hello!  I did a search on Academic Search Complete.  Anyway, the search turned up the following: Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-Era Figure. By: LAWRENCE VAN GELDER. New York Times (1/1/1985 to present), 6/21/1996, p25, 0p; (AN 29573395); Crash kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-era figure. By: Gelder, Lawrence van. New York Times, 6/21/96, Vol. 145 Issue 50465, pA25, 1bw; (AN 9609114065).  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't understand the purpose of this comment. The article isn't lacking in references around Schine's death. RedSpruce (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I didn't just go ahead and add it myself; I thought I might indicate it here should anyone think it better than the current ones or if anything in the article can be used elsewhere.  Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I'm going to RV this article to my preferred version. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), if you wish to discuss changes you would like to make, please do so and I'll be happy to respond. Alansohn, your only involvement with this article and the discussion here has been to support RAN by filibustering with nonsense, word games, circular arguments, pretended obtuseness, non-sequitur, etc., etc. If you continue in that fashion, I'll add the evidence to what has already been amassed against you in the ongoing ArbCom hearing. RedSpruce (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting over

message: There is a lengthy but pointless pretense of "discussion" of these issues above; made pointless (and laughable) by the fact that two of the parties had no goal other than obstructionism. To briefly restate one of the issues, there are currently 3(!) footnotes attached to the opening sentence of the article, and none of them serve any purpose. They document the trivial and uncontested fact that Schine was a consultant for Joseph McCarthy. Meanwhile, there is no reference to support a contestable and arguably misleading statement in this sentence: that Schine came to notoriety "in his role" as consultant to Senator McCarthy. RedSpruce (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources added in the lead section directly support statements made therein. It is astonishing that User:RedSpruce would persist in his abusive WP:OWNership issues and false attacks claiming that the addition of reliable and verifiable sources is "pointless (and laughable) by the fact that two of the parties had no goal other than obstructionism", when these claims were rejected by ArbCom. There is plenty of room for discussion here; There is no more room for abuse. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusing me of having ownership issues and making false attacks is itself a form of abuse, Alansohn, so you seem to have found "room for abuse" somehow. And I said that your pretense of a discussion was laughable, not the footnotes. And your first sentence is incorrect, for the reasons I point out immediately above. If you want to "discuss" Alansohn, you're off to a bad start. RedSpruce (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect and repetitious use of footnotes

message: I am currently seeing revert wars on the article, but without corresponding discussion at talk.  Please ensure that good faith efforts are being made to actively discuss points of disagreement, rather than just reverting each other.  Thanks, Elonka 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the RFC was for, at this point three people have reverted RedSpruces deletions. Isn't that consensus? He was blocked once for "edit warring" and a second time for 3RR violation. Yet, he is still making the same deletions, overriding consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, as an uninvolved admin here, I am making a declaration of consensus.  I have reviewed the last few months of talkpage discussions, and I have also reviewed the last few months of edits (and reverts) to the article.  The consensus of the editors here is that quotes can be included in the footnotes, if the quotes are brief, accurate, relevant to the text that is being sourced, and potentially useful and/or interesting for the reader. The quotes that exist in the article as of the time that I am writing this, appear to be in accordance with consensus, and any further blanket removal of these quotes will be seen as disruptive.  If there is a specific quote that is problematic, I encourage any dissenting editor to bring up their concerns at the talkpage. --Elonka 05:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  To help forestall any future such disputes, I have proposed an addition to the relevant guideline.  Any interested editors are strongly encouraged to participate in the discussion, at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Footnoted quotes. --Elonka 13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: This article is highly biased, as if it were ripped from some smear biography written by a bitter Marxist as revenge against Mccarthy's smackdown on red trash. I suggest that this article be deleted and Wikipedia be shut down, as these history-distorting methods are an extremely common theme in all of its articles. 72.82.235.144 (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A good example of how Marxists rewrite history

message: An anonymous user deleted a paragraph about Tony Kushner's play, calling it "purely derogatory content." I restored it, calling it "documented criticism.". The anonymous user then posted this on my Talk page:
:Regarding your reverts, I think that the content is primarily derogatory in nature - you called it criticism - and belongs in a section for criticism, not the section for cultural references, even if its both.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.107.150 (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kushner play material 

message: This article from Spy  might have some interesting material, either for the body of the entry or for Schine's later reputation/criticism. The Red-Baiter and the Billionaire Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on G. David Schine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902224218/http://www2.english.uiuc.edu:80/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm to http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208120354/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/cohn_r.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/cohn_r.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on G. David Schine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110005117/http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100128110&CFID=3154273&CFTOKEN=753943e90e86eca3-27C46959-C29B-B0E5-3E73D80721899C9A&jsessionid=8430d2aa9f57e0b98c223a58542510777772 to http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=55970100128110&CFID=3154273&CFTOKEN=753943e90e86eca3-27C46959-C29B-B0E5-3E73D80721899C9A&jsessionid=8430d2aa9f57e0b98c223a58542510777772
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G. David Schine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115021911/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1988/5/1988_5_12.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1988/5/1988_5_12.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified