Talk:Christopher Phelps

message: User:WFCarlton commented in reverting well-sourced information that the content was "Irrelevant material regarding political campaign removed. Inaccurate account of legal dispute removed from "publications" section." While he may feel that that Phelps' controversial actions about Michael Savage's actions were described inaccurately, he provided no sources to correct or contradict the information presented. His edits were reverted by two others during the past 24 hours, here and here. 
While Phelps' actions may be controversial, Wikipedia is not censored. WFCarlton ignored the reversions of his edits and a request for info on his talk page and made the same edits a third time, which seems to show a point of view, and his edits may constitute an edit war. I reverted his changes again. Given that Phelps is alive, the article contents must follow the standards for biography of living persons, including good sources. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I learned that WF Carlton is a pseudonym for C.L.R. James, a well-known Socialist of the early 1900s. It could be inferred that whoever is using the user name WF Carlton holds to a Socialist POV, which seems to be supported by the nature of his edits and his comment. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial political activity

message: I am the subject of this encyclopedia entry and I object to changes made by BTPhelps to the entry.
As of December 1, 2009, I am on staff at the University of Nottingham, not Ohio State. WFCarlton is correct about this.
The Savage case is misrepresented by BTPhelps, going off bad source material on the web. He implies I was at a unanimous faculty meeting that took a vote, but I was not at that meeting. He fails to mention the faculty reversed itself on that point two days later; I was not at that meeting either. He implies I supported the subsequent harassment referrals; I did not. This could go on forever, but my point is that three paragraphs on this in an entry on me is not proportionate. This is not a matter that was significant in my life; it is significant in another person's life, Scott Savage, who is not the subject of the article. I could go into great detail about the whole thing, but it is immaterial to the development of my thought and life.  It also was a minor campus dustup, not "controversial political activity." But in any event BTPhelps has totally misapprehended my position on the whole thing and his additions grind conservative axes and are defamatory.  They do not meet the criteria of neutral presentation.
I am a pretty insignificant historian so I'm not sure why I warrant all the energy BTPhelps is exerting here, but given that I am a living subject, frivolous changes to the entry that create a disproportionate weight and do not add to understanding of the body of the subject's historical writings are immaterial. It could have legal implications for Wikipedia.  Personally I preferred the original short version prior to the involvement of BTPhelps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.107.47 (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inept Changes

message: There is some disagreement about whether Phelps' run for U.S. Senate as a Socialist is notable. This fact has been added and re-added to the article four times by four different editors (
here, 
here, 
here, 
here.) It has been removed without discussion 
here by an editor,
and removed by unknown anonymous users  
here, 
here,
here and.
here.
In the past 24 hours the same fact has been removed twice by the subject of the article as disclosed in his entry on the talk page 
here and
here. 
This is revealed because the timing of the edit made to the article and the talk page correspond, and although the editor did not sign his entry, he self-identified himself as the subject of the article, showing the IP address used User:12.184.92.194. 
 
All of the anonymous edits originate from a constellation of closely related IP addresses in the Cincinnati, Ohio area, close by where the subject of the article resides, and close by the location of the University of Ohio, where Phelps was employed until recently. A single editor with an account has reverted information three times without discussion, and since being warned, similar edits have been made by anonymous users, and then by the subject of the article himself. This may constituted sock puppetry.
I respect Christopher Phelps opinion. However, he does not get to decide what is written about him just because he doesn't like it. He needs to engage in a dialogue with other editors and desist from making arbitrary changes to his own article in a fashion that suits him. That is the sole reason for this follow up.
Four independent editors felt Phelps' run for U.S. Senate as a Socialist notable. This by itself would seem to indicate that it merits inclusion despite Mr. Phelps' insistence that it is "inconsequential". 
I am certainly willing to entertain input from other editors, however.
-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is not who made the edits, or why, it really is does this warrant an inclusion in wikipedia. In my opinion an academic running for the US Senate does warrant an inclusion, and if it needs to be put into context, then that context should be added with reliable sources. Martin451 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Run for Senate as Socialist

message: BTPhelps, or Brett Phelps, having gotten my institutional association wrong, and then having gotten wrong the facts of a minor campus dispute, is now left with his one fact remaining, that I was on the ballot as a Socialist.  He claims I am the only one deleting this, but that's not so, since others have (Carlson or whoever the ghost of CLR James was is not moi). But it's true I have been -- not because I see it as "controversial" political activity, but rather the reverse, as inconsequential and secondary or tertiary in my life. I don't know who Brett Phelps is, since he apparently has not yet done anything notable enough to warrant any notice on the web; of course, he probably would disagree, finding parts of his life notable, and that points to the strange nature of what counts as "notable."  In my life I can think of a dozen things more notable than the electoral candidacy, more consequential for me and for the world, in which I took part. My editorships in the newspaper and publishing world, for example, or my administrative position in the anti-nuclear movement. Then there's my involvement in the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s, testimony before the U.N., etc. The entry does not include these, or my undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degrees, or--above all else, since I am a historian and writer first and foremost--the content of my ideas as expressed in my writings. As for the Senate campaign, it wasn't so much that I ran as that I was run, meaning this: the SP of Oregon asked me to stand for office, I did it, but I was excluded from the candidates' debates, had no money, and was teaching full time, so didn't do much of anything in the race.  I did a little talking about why NAFTA, which both mainstream candidates supported, had not been a good idea, but that was about it. When the two main-party candidates refused to let the media in their mansions, I gave a tour of my two-bedroom rental home. That got me a spot on the news. Apart from that the campaign was pretty immaterial to me or the world, so to my mind not at all "notable."  A diversion, a little amusing, but hardly heroic and certainly not dangerous enough to make a McCarthyist heart beat happily.  Inconsequential. As I say, my other activities are far more significant to apprehending me than the Senate campaign.  So the question is why should that be there without all the rest, and then the question is whether I am a significant enough figure to warrant such a long entry. I don't think I am. I think I'm a scholar first and foremost and that the entry is best left short and sweet without a long list of all I've done or all that's shaped me, since I don't think I matter all that much in the great universe of things.  I think Brett Phelps was attracted to the entry by my name, followed some conservative web sites, got in touch with his inner McCarthyist and wanted to out me as a socialist, a rather silly thing given that if he read a line of what I've written it would be rather obvious that I take an active interest in socialism.  So if I warrant a full treatment, then research it well and put it all in proportion and context. Know the subject, get the proportions right. But I don't think I am a subject sufficient to warrant such a full treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question of Notability