User talk:S.chock

RIAA whores

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for writing this article. Unfortunately it doesn't conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles. However, please do not be disheartened by what may happen to your first article, if indeed it is deleted. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and add articles which conform with the inclusion criteria. For help, see Help:Contents. To find out what will probably be deleted, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks, and if you have any questions, please ask them on my user talk page. To do this, click on my name (just after this sentence) and click discussion at the top and then the (+) button at the top. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller explanation

Here's a hopefully helpful explanation of the big, big, BIG problem with the article: Who uses this term? Basically, the article describes this concept of "RIAA whores". The problem is, other people call them "friggin' sellouts". Many people use various more terms, each of them more unprintable than the previous one (your contribution at least accounts to the fact that Wikipedia isn't censored). The second big problem is, what's the accurate term? Basically, this article pulls out a Random Offensive Epithet and sticks it on an identifiable group of people, which is another big problem.

So what's the correct approach to this? We're neutral. We're already documenting RIAA, we're already documenting its criticism (which indeed may be as many in varying forms as the stars in the firmament). The big point is to document how things are, and which can be verified somehow. We don't come up with completely new terms. We merely report what actually is going on and let people draw their conclusions. We report on comments made by authorities on the field.

Please at least briefly acquaint yourself with the policies and guidelines and poke your nose around to see what sort of material we do have - that is always a good way to learn what sort of stuff we do cover, and how. Hope this helps, and happy editing. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Please do not edit my comments. If you would like to offer a comment, please do so on another line and indent your comment using a *. So your comment would look like this:

Keep or Delete - your reason here

After offering your comment, please sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. --BigDT 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fuller response

Here's a hopefully helpful response.

The answer to the question who uses this term? Slashdot, DailyKos, ZeroPaid, Democratic Underground, and so on and on and on. Search Google for "RIAA whore" and "RIAA whores." Together the terms are referenced over 200 times.

The problem with your argument that "there are various terms" people use, is that this may be true, but this is not a general epithet, it's a term dependent on the subject of attack (RIAA).

As for not coming up with new terms, I didn't come up with it. I'm just noting that it's a term people are using, and adding it so that people who don't know what it means or where it comes from can learn about its history.

Look, I'm PhD student at the most respected Communications department in the country, the Annenberg School for Communication. I follow this stuff closely and I can assure you I'm not making this up. But don't take my word for it. Please go read some of the articles that have used this term over the last few years and then decide. --S.chock 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The problem is, it's still a neologism. A word that has apparently been used a few times is not exactly article material yet. And by the use of terms, I'm specifically referring to this expression; RIAA has been called a lot worse in many ways. Trust me. I'm Slashdot user #2428. I certainly know. You won't find a whole lot more RIAA-hating crowd than that. =) And when you say you're "just noting that it's a term people are using, and adding it"; that's a schoolbook example of original research. We don't document terms. We point to external research (be it scientific research or journalism) that documents new terms. We don't say "Apparently, this test group came up with a new term 'RIAA whore'." We say "According to a famous article in That Big Music Magazine, the most widespread term for this in recent years was 'RIAA whore'." --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm convinced

Go ahead and delete it. Would it make any sense to add a reference to it somehow in one of the other articles on RIAA & copyfight? -- S.chock 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only if you find good, credible sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at White supremacy

Hi. I'm afraid I've just undone this edit. You added the following paragraph:

Some argue that the present-day United States continues to reflect white supremacy, in the continued disproportionate dominance of nearly all positions of power (elected officials, corporate executives, etc) by whites and the continued systematic discrimination against all nonwhites that operates at every level from education, to the media, to the criminal justice system, and so on.

For statements like that, we need citations from Reliable Sources. Who argues? Who says there's continued systematic discrimination? And so on. See WP:NPOV (and also WP:AWW).

Another problem is that your contribution is really about racial discrimination in the U.S. today, not about White Supremacy as such. Cheers, CWC 17:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just add 'needs reference' tag?

The point of my edit is to include the discussion about present day white supremacy, otherwise the article reads as if it is either a long-dead ideology or something only applicable to extreme fringe groups today. Neither of these things are true, and any sociologist or ethnic studies scholar will tell you that white power is reflected throughout every institution (government, corporate) both in the United States, Latin America, and the EU. This is reflected in the disproportionate numbers of Anglos (disproportionate to the makeup of the general population) in all positions of power. I don't have time to find you the stats right now, but this is not something in dispute. Go check the list of nonwhite presidents, CEOs, high ranking judges, etc. etc. I think this is a valid contribution to the article, and rather than delete it, please put it back (reword it if you like to include the non-USA part) and then either find a good reference or just put the 'needs citation' tag, ok? Thanks.