Talk:Unholy Alliance

message: 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:
*Unholy Alliance, a review by PBS journalist, Rev. Dr. Allen Dwight Callahan of 
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Callahan's Review

message: I have removed the  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)
thread_title:  Link to wiktionary definition 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I say we permanently semi-protect this page and call it a day. • Maurog • 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Oh well, I guess full protection is better than none at all... • Maurog • 11:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What consensus?