Talk:Democracy & Nature

Keep As a former member of the editorial panel and contributor to Democracy and Nature I find the suggestion that this entry be deleted astonishing. It is not just that the journal was very significant internationally during its period of publication; it is a reference point for current work on how to deal with the threat of a global ecological catasrophe. If Wikipedia does not have a place to keep alive memory of the recent past, it seems to me we are in a sorry state, coming closer to 1984. Memory, as Samuel Butler argued, is a defining feature of life. Associate Professor Arran Gare, Swinburne University, Victoria, Australia.Arran Gare (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.26.222 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Very unlikely that this article will be deleted as it conforms with WP:SJ, WP:NJournals. Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Original Research warning tag, because I did not see any obvious issues in the article related to WP:NOR. Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• You also removed the "third party" tag. Please look at that one carefully, it addresses a different problem than the "primary sources" tag. The latter is about the lack of secondary sources, which may, however, still not be "third party". The article basically has only primary sources and all of them are somehow, directly or indirectly, related to the journal. As for the OR, that's less blatant, but clear nonetheless: for example, "The journal also served as a colloquium for a wide range of radical left groups" is not something stated in any source, but concluded by a WP editor from primary, non-independent sources. There is a list of "the most well known contributors to the journal", again apparently based on a WP editor perusing the tables of contents of the journal for names that they recognize. (Note that such lists are normally only included in academic journal articles if there are independent reliable sources that discuss such an author's contribution in relation to what it meant for the journal, see also WP:JWG). There is also a selection of names of editorial board members. Again, this selection seems to be based on some WP editor's judgment and is not sourced (except to the journal's website itself). Editorial boards, like contributors, are rarely named in academic journal articles (not even if they have a Nobel behind their belt), unless there are reliable third party sources that document an individual's importance for the journal. All too often, editorial boards just consist of well-known people who lend their name to the journal to give it some prestige. That often works in the real world, but here on WP, we have WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You added the templates, so maybe you can try removing the offending content. There is no harm in reducing the size of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Randykitty, having dismally failed to have the D&N entry deleted a few weeks ago, when almost all participants in the discussion rejected his irrational nomination, comes back in his vendetta against the journal, covered under WP bureaucratic rules. However, these rules clearly refer to entries on academic journals, and therefore are irrelevant to a radical Left political journal like D&N, which is obviously NOT an academic journal. I wonder why he does not try to implement the same criteria to assess the WP entries of similar political journals, which obviously need also "improvement" (or as he prefers deletion) on the basis of such criteria? 94.66.26.102 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• There we go again with the personal attacks. I will not respond to posts like this. Discuss the issues, not the person. The problems have been described in edit summaries, above, etc. The tags are standard maintenance tags. I have tried to remove the problems indicated myself before, only to be reverted and be accused of "attacking" the journal, so I will not do that again. Clean it up and the tags can go. Leave as it is and the tags stay. --Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Randykitty:, I looked over the article and don't see any specific material that is so offensive to warrant these tags. If you could indicate in detail what are the specifics you want addressed, I and others can work to improve the article. If you have discussed already these issues before and requested specific areas to be addressed, kindly provide some diffs. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, here goes. 1/ Primary sources tag: The article depends almost exclusively on primary sources and needs references to secondary sources. 2/ Third party sources tag. The article uses exclusively sources that in some way are connected with it: its own website, the website of the successor journal, etc. It needs independent sources. Note that this is a different issue from the previous one: adding a secondary source that is not independent (such as a review article published in the journal itself or its successor) would satisfy removing tag 1, but not tag2. 3/ Original research tag. The article claims that "The journal also served as a colloquium for a wide range of radical left groups, including libertarian socialists, social anarchists, and supporters of the autonomy/democratic project, which sometimes has led to debates." However, none of the sources establish this. There are references to articles in the journal and from reading those articles a WP editor has decided that this is what happened. That is about the very definition of original research. Similarly, a few people are mentioned as notable contributors, but there is no source for that beyond the journal's tables of contents and the fact that these people have WP bios: OR/SYNTH. As for the advisory board, the article states that it "consisted at times of some of the most notable figures of the radical left". This is only sourced to listings of the editorial board: OR/SYNTH again. 4/ Untagged problem. According to the academic journal article writing guide, we do not include lists of editorial/advisory board members or contributors, however notable, unless there are independent sources that document the fact that these persons had a role in the journal beyond merely figuring on the board or publishing in the journal. Being on an editorial board is a bit of an honorific, so many academics accept such invitations. Conversely, journals try to show that (notable) people have confidence in them (making it almost a kind of marketing gimmick). This is the situation with the vast majority of journals. Of course, there are exceptions where board members or contributors did much more than just being figureheads. If that is the case, this is absolutely something that needs to be included in the article, but only if the information is verifiable in independent sources. Hope this clarifies. --Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Anything else? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! I'll add a short section "abstracting and indexing" and use two of the ELs as references for that. I'd appreciate if you'd check my edits. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why not to include a list of the issues, themes and contributors. It seems like useful information for our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm very sorry, but I have to disagree yet again. Obviously, we cannot list the complete tables of contents (which the journal already does on its own website, linked from the infobox) and apparently that is recognized here, too, as we only have a selection of issues presented. However, on what criteria is that selection based? Anything beyond the judgment of an individual editor? For each issue some, but not all, contributors are listed. Again, on what is that selection based? Sources? Remarks like "contributions by some of the most important ecofeminists at the time" are promotional and, again, apparently based on the opinion of a WP editor. (And I'm not even worrying about smaller details like the horrendous overlinking; for example, Takis Fotopoulos is now linked 11 times in the article). There is duplicate info (again mentioning that the journal was continued under a different name), too. But the main problem is that it is an eclectic selection of issues and contributors, not based on any sources but on the tastes and opinions of (a) WP editor(s). So this is again an OR/SYNTH issue. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think your concerns can be easily addressed, for example: (a) remove all editorializing from the entries, (b) remove the overlinking, and finally (c) rename the section to something like "Editions", explain on the section lede that these are some examples of issues. Basically, if we can provide our readers wit some sense of what the Journal was about and who were main contributors that would be very useful as well as being compliant with content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that a, b, and c can easily be done (but not by me, because any edit I seem to be making here ends up reverted). However, that doesn't solve the problem of a WP editor making the selection. Note that the section says that all issues of the journal were organized around a central theme. So, if we don't list all (which would violate WP:NOTADIRECTORY and just copy the journal's own website), then how to make a selection. Normally we do that based on sources. Here there's a lack of sources about the journal and not even the journal itself seems ever to have said something like "issues x,y, and z where our best issues" (which would not necessarily be useful either, of course). The same goes for the contributors per issue. Note that as a rule (see the journal article writing guide), we do not include lists of contributors and even less so if we have no sources that discuss a contributor's involvement with a journal beyond the mere fact that they published in it. Even disregarding what we do with other journals, we have no basis whatsoever, except for our own opinions, to select which contributors to mention. OR/SYNTH... BTW, all that has to be checked. Noam Chomsky, for example, did not contribute to any issue listed. Instead, those issues contained interviews with him, which is quite something else. Looks like somebody is trying to ride Chomsky's coattails... --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy ... this is more complicated than I thought.... - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• The questions asked by Randykitty (for the sake always of 'improving’ the entry) betray not only double standards compared to his inaction with respect to the entries on other similar established journals (e.g. New Left Review) which happen to‘suffer’ from exactly the same ‘problems’ he accuses D&N, but also utter bias as regards for instance the case of Chomsky. And this is not a personal attack, as is the facile assertion he usually produces when he has no rational argument to counter argue. Starting with Chomsky can he show which articles by him were excluded by the indicative list of the main themes included in this section? It is obvious to any bona fide reader that Chomsky (for his own reasons, which one can suspect but it is not the point here) never contributed to the journal anything else apart from interviews. Next, he asks how to make a selection when there are no ‘objective’ sources (‘objective’ meaning here a third party source, as if the opinion, say, of another journal on D&N –or of an intellectual associated with an alternative political school of thought is by definition ‘objective’!). Third, if by removing overlinking he meant just removing the multiple links each time a contributor's name is mentioned, this of course could be easily remedied by putting a link only once against each name, irrespective of how many times this name turns up. But this is not his real aim as he clearly shows when he specifically mentions the “horrendous overlinking” for Takis Fotopoulos. However, Takis Fotopoulos happened to be the editor of the journal and, for anybody having even an elementary knowledge of what a political journal is about, it is normal practice to include many articles by the editor (see e.g. Monthly Review, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, New Left Review, Zmagazine etc.). I agree that the indicative presentation of the themes presented in the journal adopted by this entry may not be the best way to organize historical material relating to a journal and personally, I would prefer the way the New Left Review entry has organised the relevant material in its section entitled “development’. But, moving from there to suggest the elimination of any mentioning of what the main issues dealt by a journal and which the main contributors were betrays the very purpose of an encyclopaedia, if it does not hide other motives.94.66.5.222 (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OVERLINKING, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There are over 4.5 million articles on WP and I indeed admit that there are one or two, or perhaps even several, that I have never seen yet. New Left Review seems to be one of them, I fear. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the non answers to my comments.94.66.5.222 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• My pleasure, thanks for not understanding them!--Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to search the 4.5 million articles. Just take a look @ New Left Review. Also take a look @ Z Communications. The 2nd paragraph is a list of contributors and no references at all. It could be also very entertaining to take a look at The Nation. Especially the section "Notable Contributors" DONG !!!. Or the section "Regular Columns". And the best of all is the section "Editorial Board" DONG !!! So you must be really happy that there are gently wiki contributors out there whose suggestions could improve the wikipedia project in general and make you life as administrator easier too. Instead of complaining, would be not more "productive" first to take a look and try to improve the above mentioned articles ? There are not "excuses" anymore. You did not know but now you know that the above mentioned articles have serious "reliable sources" and the rest problems. Why to spend your whole life here instead of doing some productive work regarding wikipedia. Be positive and productive. KosMal (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Can I have an explanation about the arbitrary reversion of a new superior organization of the material of this entry, and at a lightning speed for that matter that does not even give a chance to editors to correct any errors or deficiencies, even if they wanted to? The existing presentation was accused by Randykitty as a simple description of contents, which, as not being also a full list of them, was not "objective". Then when John Sargis attempted today a much superior presentation, which was not just a description of contents but provided also an analysis of them, it was dismissed again, this time as ‘unsourced’ or“unverified”. Can you give any concrete examples of what exactly was “unsourced’ or ‘unverified’, so that your new accusation becomes credible?94.66.5.222 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• "not just a description of contents but provided also an analysis". Exactly. And that is indeed the whole problem. We are NOT supposed to editorialize, we do NOT give our analysis. Can't you people get it through your head that we are an encyclopedia that is build on some principles among which no original research and no synthesis are key. You can accuse me of malice as much and as often as you wish, but it would be more effective if you'd finally read and tried to understand those policies and guidelines. WP is an encyclopedia, not a place where we publish our opinions, analyses, or own work. We base ourselves on what others have said in reliable sources. Both the earlier version and the "superior version" are therefore completely unacceptable for WP. --Randykitty (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Can’t you people get it through your head (to use the same polite language you use!) that the analysis I was talking about was just a data analysis not a theoretical analysis of any sort and this is exactly why you cannot give a SINGLE example of what was ‘unverified’ in the text? However, unless you give such concrete examples, you simply use irrelevant wp regulations as pretexts to have the new version deleted, as you did also with your attempt to have the entire entry deleted and almost all participants in the discussion, apart from yourself, condemned your attempt. And of course encyclopedias DO publish analyses by the editors (and I don’t mean simply data analyses) but obviously you have never read any other encyclopedias in your life apart from Wikipedia! 94.66.5.222 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please cool it. If you want to learn about Wikipedia, and how the no original research applies here, please read these three pages: WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. These are the three core content policies of Wikipedia. If you don't like them, you are welcome to discuss changes to these in the respective talk pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Kitty, MR refers to Monthly Review. Why do you not apply the same rule to MR as it has a similar section'political orientation'? No one for instance, you, asked for citations from MR on obvious things who only ignoramuses do not know (e.g. why Bookchin, Chomsky and others mentioned in the entry are important!) even less so nobody went on immediately afterwards to put a tag that the MR entry needs clean up, as an obvious first step to demand later the deletion of the entry? If this is not double standards implemented by you (randykitty) I wonder what is! John sargis (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP has by now almost 5 million articles. If you think that I can maintain all those articles in a perfect state, then I must tell you that you are grossly overestimating my abilities. Your argument is what we call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or, less politely, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Nothing holds you back from doing a cleanup of the Monthly Review article. As for this one, nobody said that people like Chomsky are not important, even an ignoramus like me has vaguely heard of him. But that is absolutely not the point here. Chomsky has written hundreds of articles in (at least) dozens of publications. So listing him here, together with other well-known contributors is just name dropping, unless there are reliable sources that tell us why this is relevant. For example, is there any evidence that the fact that, say, Douglas Kellner published in this journal was important for his life or career or that his publishing in the journal had some special significance for the journal itself? If well-sourced information is possible, it should be mentioned in the journal. If not, common sense (and WP:JWG) tells us that listing a bunch of names does not tell us anything encyclopedic. As an aside, as someone who has contributed to this journal multiple times, you should try to take some distance. --Randykitty (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, this is name dropping , whereas when The Nation has a separate section of regular columnists it is NOT! Are you kidding everybody RandyKitty? You were saying exactly the same thing last year, you are supposed to specialise on journal entries and yet you keep discovering name dropping in D&N only but not in other important journals, although Nation was also mentioned to you last year! And of course you betray complete ignorance of what an encyclopedia should look like (I bet you have never seen a real encyclopedia in your life, like Britannica etc. )The very fact that a well known writer has contributed to a theoretical journal is by definition 'relevant' and don't hide behind another WP rule to "prove" the opposite because you simply discredit wikipedia with this sort of silly and ignorant behaviour.165.120.27.172 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you RandyKitty for admitting the double standards at wikipedia. I showed you that there are foolish consistencies held at Wikipedia, which according to Ralph Waldo Emerson, perhaps you have heard of him, explains is the “hobgloblin of little minds” (I am not going to reference it). I am not obligated to “cleanup” Monthly Review article, but are you not obligated to perform a “cleanup” at MR, since you now know about the double standard? Why does there have to be ground breaking experiences or significations for a reliable resource? I am sure of the hundreds of articles Chomsky wrote "in dozens of publications" not many were life/career changing. So listing Chomsky at other wiki pages is irrelevant unless the article changes his life or was significant for the article to be relevant? Quite ridiculous! You have plenty of work to do. You should check all Chomsky references at Wikipedia to make sure there are no foolish consistencies. John sargis (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• This talk page is for discussing this article (see WP:TALK). You are under no obligation to clean up any article, but you are complaining about the double standard, not me. There is no double standard. There just is a limited number of editors and it may take a while to get around to some, but theer's no deadline. Meanwhile, we try to keep discussions civil and free of personal attacks. Comment on the issues, not on the person (but from your user page and user talk page I see you have been warned about this numerous times, apparently to no avail). So here's the deal: The next time you question my motives or accuse me of having a "double standard", we'll go to WP:ANI and explain our case. Either I will then get blocked for biased editing and bullying you, an unbiased and neutral editor, or you will find yourself blocked for incivility and personal attacks. To get back to the matter at hand, according to what you say above, the fact that Chomsky published in this journal did not have any special significance for him, so do you have any evidence that it had any significance for the journal other than a boast that Chomsky published here (and this goes, of course, for all the names in that list of contributors). Finally, I repeat, please take some distance. I am trying to discuss this article in a calm an civil manner and I expect the same from you, despite your obvious emotional attachment to the subject. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• You either missed the point about Chomsky or you deliberately disregarded it. If Chomsky’s articles are not life changing to either him or the journal and you want to remove the citation, then you have to go to all Chomsky articles at Wikipedia to determine whether his article is at all significant life changing for him or whatever pages they are at Wikipedia so as not to be biased. The link you provided “no deadline-don’t rush to delete” rule is gaping. If, for instance, Monthly Review page is deleted today, and it takes 5 years to get to, for instance, the Nation for deletion, because of a lack of administrators and no deadline, portrays a foolish consistency. If there are wiki rules that are “double standards” and an administrator enforces them, then logic dictates that the administrator is biased. Furthermore, I do question your motives since if you think I am attacking you personally, you will go to the WP:ANI board to get me banned. I question your motives, because before you post a grievance against a user with the board, you must FIRST try to resolve the issue on my talk page. Which you did not do. Could be harassment. John sargis (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure you are an unbiased editor, nobody can dispute this, even if 'by coincidence', the very moment another user provided the required citations you found another excuse to put back the tag and at the same time, 'by coincidence' always, you found that all entries related to the D&N entry (i.e. the Inclusive Democracy entry and Takis Fotopoulos entry) are also problematic. If this is not POLITICAL BIAS of the worst kind, I don't know what is, and I am not going to waste anymore time with you. I am sure you can find some other obscure wiki rules (from the thousands of such rules available!) to continue but I hope there are other unbiased administrators reading all this who may intervene, as your game now is pretty obvious to every unbiased user. 165.120.27.172 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I hadn't taken any part in this discussion, although it came to my attention that Randykitty "struck back" after a decently long history of various, at a venture, additions of, at first glance, useless tags to the Inclusive Democracy entries, for which he was called to attention both by the two editors above in the past few days (when his new "spree" began) and in the last 1 year or so (see dialogues in this Talk Page above). But after his latest repeated and totally exorbitant demand for "third party" verification of the list of contributors of the Democracy & Nature journal and their notability, it became to me clearer that he indeed is biased with the ID entries, as he was accused for. And this is a completely insensible demand as any literate person (and Randykitty is a very literate person, and this makes these acts of his look more suspicious and biased!) can understand, there is no need or -even worse-, it's not practical at all, to ask for an editor to substantiate that the list of the contributors of a Journal is verified by third party sources! As it is more than self-evident, the list of contributors etc. of a Journal can be found straight off in the Journal itself (our Primary Source in this case), and one might even never find a third party source that will list all contributors of the Journal! This simple cogitation is therefore, first, simple...common sense, and secondly, could be easily be derived by simply referring to how Primary Sources can be used sometimes in place of third party sources -something that I tried to bring to his attention but Randykitty still decided to restore this exorbitant demand! So, one can read in the Policy of the Primary Sources Wikipedia entry:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

(My emphasis)

Last but not least, it's more than obvious that almost all the names in the Journal's contributors' list are "notable" from the very moment they just have their own articles in Wikipedia per notability guidelines and hence there is no need for third party interpretation of this! So, is Randykitty's recurrent actions in this entry and, it seems now, generally in the ID entries simply "accidental", particularly by such an experienced editor who claims to know almost all Wikipedia rules by heart, or is it, at last, striking bias on his part? Hands up, I am letting the reader decide! Panlis (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Randykitty why is the advisory board list that you undid not allowed in D&N, but is allowed in many significant journals as I reported to you which infers double standards? Here is the list of wiki articles which corroborate what I mean: Monthly Review, Z Communications, CounterPunch, Democracy (journal), Middle East Quarterly, among others.John sargis (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article. If you have a problem with other articles, you should improve them or, if challenged, discuss the matter on their talk pages (per WP:BOLD), instead of edfit warring. As I have said multiple times, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. It would mean that all articles on WP could be as bad as the worst article around. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS sums it up quite well. That other articles lists their editorial board is not reason to include them here, per WP:JWG#What not to include. The solution here is not to include the editorial boards here, but to remove them from the other articles.

John Sargis et al should also read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, because as it stands, the project would not lose much if they were blocked for repeated personal attacks.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's rules are brainless and not complicated. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it works because the rubrics by which the site is run will consistently lead a majority of contributors to precisely come to the same conclusion on all kinds of complicated scenarios.

The issue here is whether a list of people affiliated with an organization but whose affiliation is not covered by external media sources should be allowed to be included. The answer tens of thousands of times in the past (for magazines, businesses, schools, clubs, awards) is no.

Be nice and follow the rules. If someone wants to propose changes then please understand the rules, propose the changes briefly without personal attacks, and ask for comment. Almost everyone on Wikipedia manages to have a positive experience doing things the usual way. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Blue here. We are biased toward independent sources. I know of any number of magazines, or for that matter encyclopedias or similar works, which have freaking huge lists of contributors, and sometimes largish boards of editors, which rarely if ever get mentioned in our articles on those works. Now, if the subject is important enough to the content, either due to some sort of bias (like, for instance, all the board of editors being from a single school?), then that matter is almost certainly going to be covered in discussions of the topic from independent sources. I know I have seen such discussion regarding some reference works regarding religion, for instance. If it isn't important enough to the subject that it is discussed at reasonable length in independent sources, then it probably doesn't belong here. If the number of independent sources is too limited to make for an article as long as we might like, well, too bad. We can have a few articles that don't take 20 minutes or more to read, particularly if the amount of independent coverage of them is small. I really don't see much of a basis for a problem here - either find the independent sources or stop trying to add it to the article. Period. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

there can sometimes be an exception for a political or issue-oriented magazine, where the names of the contributors characterize the nature of the subject. Even so, we limit it only to those notable enough for articles in WP, and notable in the specific context. The list here I think was highly appropriate--it characterises the magazine. The Advisory Board list here is a much broader body--such a list will only rarely be appropriate, and is not appropriate here,. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

On this article, as well as the articles on Inclusive Democracy and Takis Fotopoulos, John sargis has repeatedly violated his topic ban. I remind that, as per this discussion, he and Panlis had been topic-banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy, broadly construed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.231.42 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)