Talk:Roger Kimball

message: Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.
The re are also issues with the presentation of material here being not neutral. A list of quotes out of context is unacceptable. --Docg 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: User:‎Tkuvho reverted me wholesale on my removals.  Why do we need that long a quote?  Also, why did you revert the external links, as the use of them in this article clearly violates our guideline? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, User:Thargor Orlando claims that I reverted him "wholesale", but does not mention his own wholesale deletion of material.  If you think there are too many external links, let's discuss this.  The quote in question presents a much clearer picture of Kimball's position than the truncated version you left in the article.  I can see that someone who disagrees with Kimball will not want to keep the full quote, but wiki is not the place to impose personal opinions. Tkuvho (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I make no comments on Kimball's position on anything, a long quote like that is not really necessary and may carry copyright implications, but I'm not married to its removal.  As for the links, however, how do you believe the links meet the guideline? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These interviews attest to Kimball's notability. If you think it is more appropriate to include them as citations, please reformat the material, but it clearly belongs in the article. Tkuvho (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the interviews will help the article?  His notability isn't in question. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Material establishing notability belongs in the article whether or not notability is currently "in question".  Also, a reader interested in learning more about Kimball's position can follow the link to one of the interviews to find out more. I don't really understand the rationale for wanting to delete these links. Do you feel they violate a specific guideline? As I already mentioned, the links can be reformatted as footnotes. Tkuvho (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted in my original comment, they very clearly violate our external link guideline.  What part of the interviews will help the article, and we can convert those into reflinks so we can get this article conformed to guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted in my earlier message, the constructive way of approaching this is to move the clearly useful material to footnotes if you feel they shouldn't be links, as per common sense and WP:IAR. Tkuvho (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that you're the one who wants them as inline cites.  I personally don't know which are useful or not for that sort of thing, all I know is that they don't meet the guideline.  Since you seem to be okay with their removal from external links, I'll do that and add the viable links that I'm removing below for easy access if you want to make them inline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your hard work!  Tkuvho (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And I appreciate your cooperation and collaboration! Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes and external links 

message: The page has undergone a massive revision by one user who was doubtless acting in response to an article published two days ago.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/06/an_impending_coup_at_st_johns_college_130786.html
I totally agree with the user Emjem1963 that page needs to be pared down, but suspect that methods less draconian would be preferable to the atom bomb just dropped on the page. I move to restore the page to what it was before, and then pare it down to something more appropriately-sized...afterwards this immediate furor dies down, as that is obviously what inspired our fair user to do this.
Jim37hike (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jim, and have just acted to undo Emjem1963's edits. Uhhhhhno (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

text: I went to this page to try to learn about the person, but found instead what reads like a (very long) promotional press release. I believe my original edits left the page to be in line with similar pages - a complete listing of the author's activities and books, and a summary of the premise of each book.  I broke my edits down into individual changes, so it was hardly an atom bomb. 
When the book in question is highly political, I don't believe that uncritically quoting large chunks of text is appropriate. What is appropriate is a concise summary of the premise of the book. Long and controversial quotes, if included, should also include some balance. I'm taking another cut at it, making even smaller individual changes and attempting to introduce some balance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjem1963 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  axe to grind