User talk:C.J. Griffin

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Shenanigans at Suharto

Hey there, those WP:SPAs on Suharto are most likely sockpuppet accounts of Ruthie Ann Miles. It has been going on for a while now. Best to WP:DENY. Aleain (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Re: United States

I saw your revert. Please weigh in on the talk page (the bottom). Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Revert question

Hey. Did you have any particular objections to the reversion I made?

• The Lee Resolution is not particularly that important. It is the Declaration of Independence's public reading on July 4, 1776 that is seen as the nation's establishment, according to both tradition and most historians.

• The rest repeats what is found elsewhere in the paragraph.

• Native American reserves have a questionable, controversial relationship to being truly autonomous. Many historians and native rights activists consider it to be window dressing. The states have substantially more protected authority in the constitution and federal laws.

Or was it just concern over the deletions? Jollyrime (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I strongly objected to the removal of the emphasis on wealth inequality and its replacement with a benign reference to the Gini index, which of course is only one way to measure wealth inequality. The lead should follow what the text in the body says about this. In addition I thought the deletions in general went too far as the lead was built through consensus over many years on talk, in which I participated. Those are the reasons I reverted. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Your revert on the "Criticism of capitalism" page

You reverted my edit on Criticism of Capitalism with the comment "He is a notable historian. Who cares what Reason mag says". Reason is classified as a reliable source WP:REASONNEWS. You also reverted some edits on Sven Beckert. In one of your edit summaries you say "I’m removing the Reason source as it was written by a climate change denier making it blatantly unreliable." Is it your perspective that if a contributing writer to a reliable source disagrees with your opinion on an unrelated topic that the source is now unreliable? Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

He is on par with a conspiracy theorist which is why his sources have been removed from other articles by other editors. He is certainly given undue weight in a BLP for sure. And his opinion certainly does not carry enough weight to justify removal of a Harvard historian as a source in other articles like Criticism of capitalism.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with any cases in which his work has been removed from other articles by other editors. Could you point me to any prior discussions about this?

Secondly, I would caution the use of "Harvard historian" as an automatic qualifier for reliability or accuracy. There are several examples of current or former Harvard professors many consider to be unreliable: Roland Fryer, Harvey Mansfield, or Francesca Gino, just to name a few. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

His quote box and citation were removed from the neoliberalism article some time back by another editor for being an unreliable source. I can’t remember exactly when. Nevertheless, the Reason article cannot be used to determine whether another source can be used on Wikipedia. C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

This blockquote gives undue prominence to a rhetorically charged passage. High-quality secondary sources should be used, rather than a standalone quotation. Please also mind WP:OVERQUOTING: "Long quotations crowd the actual article and distract attention from other information" PJ Geest (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been considering converting the quote to prose and adding some additional material and sources. I’ll work on this in the next few days as time permits. C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

⚠

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the wording and sources at Communist Party of Indonesia's page. The discussion is about the party's involvement in the 1965 coup, and what the scholars/experts say. The thread is Southeastviewer (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Consensus

Regarding my edit on the Wikipedia page for Mao Zedong, how do I find consensus if nobody replies to my discussion? Shaun135 (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar

Though I don't believe that either your nor Sibshop's second edits today were reverts, I am just dropping a note on both your talkpages to point out that the article is under a 1RR restriction. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will revert my most recent if necessary.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)