| Revision as of 03:56, 1 September 2007 editRevolutionaryluddite (talk | contribs)2,415 edits →Proper use of sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:45, 1 September 2007 edit undoRevolutionaryluddite (talk | contribs)2,415 edits Removing personal attacksNext edit → | ||
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
| :I do feel somewhat strongly about this since the terms "denial machine" and "denial industry" imply that there's a single, well-organized secret organization (like, say, ]) behind 'climate denial'; unattributed use of the terms is rather POV. ] 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | :I do feel somewhat strongly about this since the terms "denial machine" and "denial industry" imply that there's a single, well-organized secret organization (like, say, ]) behind 'climate denial'; unattributed use of the terms is rather POV. ] 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Fair point. I suppose in this case it might be both an actual quotation ''and'' scare quotes! I really dislike scare quotes on general principle (even when they're not attempting to scare — I recently removed the quotes around "directives" in the EU article for that reason), but approve of proper quotations. Here, I'm somewhat ambivalent. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | ::Fair point. I suppose in this case it might be both an actual quotation ''and'' scare quotes! I really dislike scare quotes on general principle (even when they're not attempting to scare — I recently removed the quotes around "directives" in the EU article for that reason), but approve of proper quotations. Here, I'm somewhat ambivalent. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Proper use of sources == | |||
| Please read and become familiar with ], ] and ]. It's come to my attention that several editors, including a fellow admin, have discovered you adding sources that do not support questionable content. Misusing sources is a big deal, I've seen it prompt others to doubt an editor's good faith and ultimately in the worst cases leading to them being banned. This issue has caused a lot of extra work for others; continuing to misuse sources will cause the issue being taken up at ]. So please take the time to become more familiar with our core policies and guideline on this and be sure to carefully read each source you intend to add to make sure it actually supports what the content says. Just because a source contains a key word in the content does not mean it supports the content, so simply Googling and using CNTRL+F is not going to be sufficient. ] 01:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why are you assuming my good faith now, when you did not do so in the past? ] 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:45, 1 September 2007
Welcome!
Hello, Revolutionaryluddite, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Dragons flight 14:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Climate stuff =
You mind checking out instrumental temperature record? The KDP/RA/WMC triumvirate is attmpeting to stifle a pretty reasonable contribution. Zoomwsu 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Revolutionaryluddite 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think that KDP and other users have a good point about 'weight'. Revolutionaryluddite 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
George Bush's secret army
(As this is straying off topic, I posted to your Talk Page. Feel free to respond here, I'll know when you do.) Personally, I'd rather be called a denialist than part of George Bush's secret army, but I'm sure that stems from my own political ideology. Egads, it makes me shiver just thinking about it. ;) Ben Hocking 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)of
- I like being called a member of 'George Bush's secret army' because, after being homeschooled, I went on to be elected the 'Leadership Officer' of the local Phi Theta Kappa chapter of my local community college and then tranferred to a four year University after getting a AS with a 3.927 GPA. So, I smile when I hear/read homeschoolers called/(implied to be) Christian fundamentalist morons. Revolutionaryluddite 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the homeschooling part (all homeschooled people I know are quite smart, but then there is a selection bias for homeschooled people I'd know), it's the George Bush part. Being homeschooled definitely doesn't imply you're not smart, being a supporter of George Bush on the other hand... (I kid, I kid - I actually know a handful of smart people who voted for Bush in 2004.) Ben Hocking 12:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- As my user page says, I'm pretty much split right down the middle politically wise. That does not make me a centrist by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a extremist, it's just that I'm a ideologically inconsistent extremist. I oppose abortion in nearly all cases (far right) and oppose the death penalty in nearly all cases (far left). I want to keep our troops in Iraq to prevent a possible genocide (far right) and I want to send our troops to Darfur to stop the ongoing genocide there (far left). I treat politics differntly because I'm on a mission from God. Revolutionaryluddite 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not on a mission from God, but other than that, we're not that different. I consider myself to be a "radical moderate". :) (As for Iraq, I'm of very mixed feelings. I'm concerned that our presence there is actually contributing to the violence more than its quelling it. A rapid pull-out could lead to even worse violence, though. I'm also very afraid of how George Bush would orchestrate such a pull-out, as he doesn't seem to have very good military advisers at the highest level.) Ben Hocking 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'm concerned that our presence there is actually contributing to the violence more than its quelling it." The excellent book Cobra II mentions that the federal government conducted a study before the invasion of Iraq studying the allied nation-building efforts in the Balkans. The conclusion of the study was clear: The necessary level of force varies inversely with the amount of troops on the ground. With a large reserve of troops, individual terrorist gangs can be fought building by bloody building, block by bloody block, neigborhood by bloody neighborhood. Under Rumsfeld's idiotic 'delta action force' doctrine, our small sections of troops rush in, level the entirely neigborhood, and then leave as quickly as they came. As far as Abu Ghraib prison goes, I agree with a lot of other evangelicals that torture is unconditionally unacceptable, and that the building should have been at least sealed off-- not used by our very own forces! Revolutionaryluddite 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I say contributing to the violence, I'm primarily talking about the fact that enemy combatants (terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever) are using our very presence as a propaganda tool for building support. Our mere presence (regardless of what we do) makes many (if not most) Iraqis very nervous, resentful, etc. Our presence also shows support for the rule of law. Which of these factors is stronger, I honestly don't know, and I don't trust any of our media (or anybody else's) to give me an accurate picture. Ben Hocking 18:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- "When I say contributing to the violence, I'm primarily talking about the fact that enemy combatants (terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever) are using our very presence as a propaganda tool for building support." I see your point. I don't like President George W. Bush, but if Canada decides to invade and install John Kerry as president-- I'll probably grab an Armalite :)
- Seriously though, as far as terrorist motivation goes, the impetus behind Al-Qaeda has been US military presence in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. A wholesale withdrawl from Iraq, John Murtha-style, wouldn't do much to take the steam out of the international jihadist movement. Revolutionaryluddite 18:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's also the danger that a withdrawal will just benefit the propaganda in a different way (although I loathe talk about it "emboldening the enemy", etc.). My main point about Iraq is that, to me, there is no obvious path to take. It's not clear to me that we should stay, and it's not clear to me that we shouldn't. I don't know enough about so many different things affecting that policy decision, that I am unable to form a strong opinion about the correct course of action. I do feel that if we stay, a draft might be unavoidable. I have a cousin who has just finished her 3rd tour of duty, and I don't want her to serve a 4th. I have another cousin about to start his 1st tour of duty. (As for me, I failed the army physical — due to severe near-sightedness — more than 15 years ago.) Ben Hocking 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind serving in the military if our explicit mission would to be to stop a genocide-- Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan. The problem comes with things such as the initial decision to invade Iraq, which I was strongly opposed to. Revolutionaryluddite 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Benhocking, I had hoped that I could give you the last word in our quasi-argument above, oh well. Revolutionaryluddite 05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Word. ;) Ben Hocking 05:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Benhocking, I had hoped that I could give you the last word in our quasi-argument above, oh well. Revolutionaryluddite 05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind serving in the military if our explicit mission would to be to stop a genocide-- Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, Sudan. The problem comes with things such as the initial decision to invade Iraq, which I was strongly opposed to. Revolutionaryluddite 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's also the danger that a withdrawal will just benefit the propaganda in a different way (although I loathe talk about it "emboldening the enemy", etc.). My main point about Iraq is that, to me, there is no obvious path to take. It's not clear to me that we should stay, and it's not clear to me that we shouldn't. I don't know enough about so many different things affecting that policy decision, that I am unable to form a strong opinion about the correct course of action. I do feel that if we stay, a draft might be unavoidable. I have a cousin who has just finished her 3rd tour of duty, and I don't want her to serve a 4th. I have another cousin about to start his 1st tour of duty. (As for me, I failed the army physical — due to severe near-sightedness — more than 15 years ago.) Ben Hocking 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- When I say contributing to the violence, I'm primarily talking about the fact that enemy combatants (terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever) are using our very presence as a propaganda tool for building support. Our mere presence (regardless of what we do) makes many (if not most) Iraqis very nervous, resentful, etc. Our presence also shows support for the rule of law. Which of these factors is stronger, I honestly don't know, and I don't trust any of our media (or anybody else's) to give me an accurate picture. Ben Hocking 18:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'm concerned that our presence there is actually contributing to the violence more than its quelling it." The excellent book Cobra II mentions that the federal government conducted a study before the invasion of Iraq studying the allied nation-building efforts in the Balkans. The conclusion of the study was clear: The necessary level of force varies inversely with the amount of troops on the ground. With a large reserve of troops, individual terrorist gangs can be fought building by bloody building, block by bloody block, neigborhood by bloody neighborhood. Under Rumsfeld's idiotic 'delta action force' doctrine, our small sections of troops rush in, level the entirely neigborhood, and then leave as quickly as they came. As far as Abu Ghraib prison goes, I agree with a lot of other evangelicals that torture is unconditionally unacceptable, and that the building should have been at least sealed off-- not used by our very own forces! Revolutionaryluddite 18:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not on a mission from God, but other than that, we're not that different. I consider myself to be a "radical moderate". :) (As for Iraq, I'm of very mixed feelings. I'm concerned that our presence there is actually contributing to the violence more than its quelling it. A rapid pull-out could lead to even worse violence, though. I'm also very afraid of how George Bush would orchestrate such a pull-out, as he doesn't seem to have very good military advisers at the highest level.) Ben Hocking 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- As my user page says, I'm pretty much split right down the middle politically wise. That does not make me a centrist by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a extremist, it's just that I'm a ideologically inconsistent extremist. I oppose abortion in nearly all cases (far right) and oppose the death penalty in nearly all cases (far left). I want to keep our troops in Iraq to prevent a possible genocide (far right) and I want to send our troops to Darfur to stop the ongoing genocide there (far left). I treat politics differntly because I'm on a mission from God. Revolutionaryluddite 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not the homeschooling part (all homeschooled people I know are quite smart, but then there is a selection bias for homeschooled people I'd know), it's the George Bush part. Being homeschooled definitely doesn't imply you're not smart, being a supporter of George Bush on the other hand... (I kid, I kid - I actually know a handful of smart people who voted for Bush in 2004.) Ben Hocking 12:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A picture into the mind of a Wikipediholic: Stay above the Influence!
-- This was orignally titled "'Category: Denialism' Deletion Debate" and intended to be posted on someone else's talk page --
If it looks like I'm dogging you on the deletion debate, it's because I have absolutely no life and have been spending all of my time the past week on the internet editing Misplaced Pages while listening to AC/DC on YouTube.
It now occurs to me that posting in your talk page is a horrible idea given that I've been debating you on the 'Category: Denialism' deletion page and this may be outside interference.
It now occurs to me that posting my previous comments as such would make me appear either completly insane or completely vicious. I know I'm not the latter; I'm not so sure about the former.
It now occurs to me that, if I posted what I have just typed, that you would have every right to call it WP:Vandalism.
I take that back, if you did not consider this WP:Vandalism, than I would be shocked.
Maybe I will post this on my talk page.
It occurs to me that I should not be posting this anyhere.
I'm going to toss a Lexar Media 128 MB Compactflash copyright 2000 "8X" (Whatever that means) memory card stick/wafer thing. Okay. I flipped it heads. It flipped in onto the chair beside me. Blast it, I threw it on my poor Lhasa Apso dog that had been sleeping. Okay, she moved over to the other side of the chair. I pet her a little bit.
Anyway, heads. Of course, I did not say what 'heads' or 'tails' would imply before I flipped it. I'm turning up Its A Long Way To The Top If Ya Wanna Rock And Roll on the computer: It's the kickass bagpipes solo! Hotel, Motel! Make you wanna cry! Scotland power! God bless Scotland! Give Scotland back to the Scots Gordon Brown! The Pommys may have torn William Wallace's still-beating heart of his body, but the could never take his FREEDOM! They're at the other kickass bagpipes solo. Okay, it's over.
Okay, I clicked on 'Sin City' at The Midnight Special in 1978.
Right, so what... I was debating whether or not to post this on my talk page.
I'm going down- to Sin City!
Blast it, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. (I didn't like that comment to the policy cite because I don't know how I don't know the proper wording).
Misplaced Pages is not a blog either.
I'm going to post it anyway.
I'm sure that if any other Wikipedians had a personal respect for me; I would already blow it some other way.
I'm still going to post this.
I AM.
Really.
Okay, 'Sin City' is over- man, I am a ssllooooww ttyyppiisstt.
I'm seriously going to post this.
I did.
Revolutionaryluddite 04:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I am now listening to "Hold On, I'm Comin'" from Herbie Mann's album Memphis Underground. I highly reccomend it.
sourcing
go to WP:REF
Climate change denial criticisms sandbox
I've created a sandbox that I'm inviting you and others to contribute to. Don't get me wrong, I still think you're wrong (about the notability of pundits making the connection itself as opposed to the notability of pundits reporting on those making the connection), but I want to give you the chance to convince me without a lot of deleting going on. Ben Hocking 15:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Having taken a step back and reviewed Benzocanes', Kim D. Petersen's, and your arguements, I'm no longer sure whether or not the "climate denier" and "holocaust denier" connection should be mentioned. Revolutionaryluddite 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mentioned this on the talk page. Revolutionaryluddite 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed — thanks. Btw, that first paragraph (of this section) was a cut-and-paste job that I put on several people's talk page (which I don't think violates WP:CANVAS), so it wasn't specifically aimed at you. I was focusing on people who had expressed an interest, however weakly, of having the climate change denial criticisms section. Ben Hocking 02:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mentioned this on the talk page. Revolutionaryluddite 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Snippy
I don't care where you are on (or off) the political spectrum, I like your contribution! (I'll make the bold prediction that it'll last, too. It might even grow in unexpected ways. Ipsative was my first "official" page, although I had created Idiothetic earlier — before creating an account.) Ben Hocking 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Revolutionaryluddite 05:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC) ('Off the political spectrum', that's so true)
- The 'Snippy' article has a newly posted statement saying "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days". It gives "concern: Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, political commentary". Also, "This template was added 2007-08-18 16:07; five days from then is 2007-08-23 16:07". Given that it says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason", I have so removed and have so "explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page". Revolutionaryluddite 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I put in my 2 cents worth on the article's talk page, and cleaned up the refs using template:cite web. Ben Hocking 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am a small bit worried though, given that I directed you to the article and you posted on my talk page first, that I might be inadvertantly performing WP:Spam. Revolutionaryluddite 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You might get accused of it, but nothing would come of it, because you definitely weren't spamming (or even canvassing) me. For one thing, it fails the size requirement. Ben Hocking 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- After reviewing WP:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer, I see what you mean. Revolutionaryluddite 21:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You might get accused of it, but nothing would come of it, because you definitely weren't spamming (or even canvassing) me. For one thing, it fails the size requirement. Ben Hocking 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am a small bit worried though, given that I directed you to the article and you posted on my talk page first, that I might be inadvertantly performing WP:Spam. Revolutionaryluddite 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I put in my 2 cents worth on the article's talk page, and cleaned up the refs using template:cite web. Ben Hocking 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- The 'Snippy' article has a newly posted statement saying "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days". It gives "concern: Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, political commentary". Also, "This template was added 2007-08-18 16:07; five days from then is 2007-08-23 16:07". Given that it says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason", I have so removed and have so "explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page". Revolutionaryluddite 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, after having experianced environmentalism from the cradle through west Chicagoan Blue Dog Democratic parents and having purchased Earth in the Balance when I was in elementary school, I strongly supported Al Gore in 2000. The term that fits best is '9/12 Republican'-- a somewhat rare liberal-to-conservative mutation that has no cure (for now). I didn't start changing my mind until after I read the 9/11 Commission Report in mid-2004. (I also like 'Schwarzenegger Republican'-- 'green' mixed with 'red, white, and blue'.) I created the article primarily because I'm a hardcore SNL fan. Revolutionaryluddite 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've sort of gone in the reverse direction (the first president I ever "voted" for — it was a school election — was Gerald Ford). My dad has always voted Republican (at least nationally), whereas my mom is pretty much the reverse. (Both are somewhat moderate though, if a good candidate of the other party is running, they have no qualms about voting for them.) I'm no 'Schwarzenegger Republican', but I do respect his political career. Heck, if he met the criteria, I could even imagine voting for him for president! Two terms I use to describe myself are 'radical moderate' (which I already mentioned) and 'Charlottesville conservative'. You'd understand the latter better if you realized how liberal Charlottesville is. The only Republican we had running for city council in the last election was barely Republican. I voted for him, if for no other reason that I thought the council could use the diversity. He did not win. Ben Hocking 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Heck, if he met the criteria, I could even imagine voting for him for president!" Have you seen The Simpsons Movie? Revolutionaryluddite 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, Chicago is also pretty darned liberal.)
- I have not seen the movie, but I plan to. I'll probably wait for DVD, though. Ben Hocking 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are some really funny scenes in it about the newly elected 'Simpsons' President-- I won't spoil it for it you; just see it. (DVD or theatre; it doesn't really matter). "the first president I ever "voted" for — it was a school election — was Gerald Ford" That reminds of when my Political Science instructor told the class that she had waited to be sure Illinois was a Democratic state before she voted for Nader. Revolutionaryluddite 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (While I'm at, see RH3.)
- I have not seen the movie, but I plan to. I'll probably wait for DVD, though. Ben Hocking 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- "Heck, if he met the criteria, I could even imagine voting for him for president!" Have you seen The Simpsons Movie? Revolutionaryluddite 21:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, Chicago is also pretty darned liberal.)
- I've sort of gone in the reverse direction (the first president I ever "voted" for — it was a school election — was Gerald Ford). My dad has always voted Republican (at least nationally), whereas my mom is pretty much the reverse. (Both are somewhat moderate though, if a good candidate of the other party is running, they have no qualms about voting for them.) I'm no 'Schwarzenegger Republican', but I do respect his political career. Heck, if he met the criteria, I could even imagine voting for him for president! Two terms I use to describe myself are 'radical moderate' (which I already mentioned) and 'Charlottesville conservative'. You'd understand the latter better if you realized how liberal Charlottesville is. The only Republican we had running for city council in the last election was barely Republican. I voted for him, if for no other reason that I thought the council could use the diversity. He did not win. Ben Hocking 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, after having experianced environmentalism from the cradle through west Chicagoan Blue Dog Democratic parents and having purchased Earth in the Balance when I was in elementary school, I strongly supported Al Gore in 2000. The term that fits best is '9/12 Republican'-- a somewhat rare liberal-to-conservative mutation that has no cure (for now). I didn't start changing my mind until after I read the 9/11 Commission Report in mid-2004. (I also like 'Schwarzenegger Republican'-- 'green' mixed with 'red, white, and blue'.) I created the article primarily because I'm a hardcore SNL fan. Revolutionaryluddite 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Tip for linking categories in talk pages
In case you don't already know it, adding a colon in front of a category allows you to provide a link to it. E.g., instead of typing ] type ] to get Category:Denialism. Ben Hocking 22:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; no, I didn't know how to do that. Revolutionaryluddite 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Barnstars
| File:Resilient-silver.png | The Resilient Barnstar | |
| For keeping a cool head when others might not and doing your best to be NPOV, you need to know that some of us do appreciate your efforts! Ben Hocking 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
- Thank you! BTW, is there a 'WP' guide for Barnstars? Revolutionaryluddite 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Beatitudes
Given your religious views, I encourage you to take a look at the Beatitudes article. As I note on the talk page, there appear to be a couple of minor copyright issues, and based off my experience so far, this is a much less stressful page than certain other pages. IMO, it could use a bit of cleaning up to make it somewhat more encyclopedic, but I'm loathe to do too much editing due to my own POV. Ben Hocking 14:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs cleaning up, even the first paragraph. Thanks for pointing it out. Revolutionaryluddite 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to begin. The frequent and puzzling use of 'we' sticks out the most. The page even uses the phrase "We've already seen". Revolutionaryluddite 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Real quote that looks like scare quotes
Regarding your recent use of quotation marks around denial industry, I'm a little concerned that such a short quote (do quotes of fewer than 4 words need to be quoted?) might be confused with scare quotes. I know that wasn't your intention, but I'm giving you a heads up to expect someone to revert this change for that reason. If you feel strongly about this being identified as a quotation (I don't really care too much either way), a preemptive strike on the talk page might be indicated. Ben Hocking 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do feel somewhat strongly about this since the terms "denial machine" and "denial industry" imply that there's a single, well-organized secret organization (like, say, HYDRA) behind 'climate denial'; unattributed use of the terms is rather POV. Revolutionaryluddite 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair point. I suppose in this case it might be both an actual quotation and scare quotes! I really dislike scare quotes on general principle (even when they're not attempting to scare — I recently removed the quotes around "directives" in the EU article for that reason), but approve of proper quotations. Here, I'm somewhat ambivalent. Ben Hocking 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)