Template:Archive box collapsible

Just a courtesy note that I've mentioned your name at Talk:Clarence Thomas, in a discussion over the WP:BLP/N thread to which you contributed. Please let me know, or correct me, if I've incorrectly represented your input. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes, these [1] [2] represented my position accurately. If I had known then what I know now, I would have reworded things differently, although from reading that discussion, I wonder if it would have mattered. Aside: thanks for the plug about lacking axes. I am sure deep down that is not strictly the case, but feedback that I am keeping them to myself is both gratifying and useful. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It occurred to me that we were arguing over what you meant without actually asking you. I've had similar experiences, where I find that people have spent 80 kb arguing over the meaning of an opinion I provided somewhere without ever asking me to clarify, so I thought I'd let you know. Although as a result, WP:CANVASSing has been added to the laundry list of charges on which I'm being indicted. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I can't see how the canvassing charge will stick, but I'll keep an eye on things and chime in on that issue if necessary. Ironically, I wasn't even planning on following up on the article other than to clarify your mention (experience with contentious BLPs have made me once bitten, twice shy). Doubly ironically, SD's concern is not totally devoid of merit, but their behavior, which is fast approaching, if not attaining, unacceptable, might be making moving the argument in that direction even harder. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much how I feel. I think we can write a high-quality, thorough biography of Clarence Thomas without using the words "far right", and without citing Oyez.org. In my ideal article, we'd probably do neither. But it seems to me that this is not about improving the article, but about excising a source that one editor doesn't like by any means necessary. Given the erroneous and occasionally misleading nature of the arguments being employed, I'm a bit concerned that validating them will lead to additional problems further down the line. And finally, given the way things have been represented so far, I suspect that any concession I make will later be presented as: "MastCell confessed his error and agreed to stop violating BLP" rather than "MastCell and I hammered out a compromise." But such is life.

In any case, there seems to be an ongoing edit war there which I have no desire to be a part of. I'll probably wait and see what direction the editing environment takes. I thought Noroton had some good suggestions; I think that improving the article may be possible if outside editors get involved, but I strongly suspect it's a poor use of my time to engage in a lengthy one-on-one in this particular situation. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your July 13, 2009 edit of the above article where you removed the words "very nuanced" that I used to describe a Holy See document referred to in the article. Your reason you gave was "subtle OR/POV." I then looked for and found the meaning of those acronyms in Wikipedia and learned something of the relevant editing and reverting protocols. Wikipedia recommends that discussion precede reversion, so here goes.

The article originally established a very stark dichotomy between what it said the Holy See document instructed and what it said was Archbishop Dolan's position. My edit, based on a reading of the Holy See document and of the article cited in support of its description of Archbishop Dolan's position, was an attempt to reflect accurately what each of those two sources had to say about the matter. To eliminate the descriptive "very nuanced" from the referenced Holy See document does not, in my view, do justice to the thoughtful handling of a very complex subject that is evident from a reading of the full document, as opposed to the what might be inferred from a reading of only the quoted passage. Likewise, the original Wikipedia text attributed to Archbishop Dolan words not justified by the supporting citation.

As I understand the Wikipedia definitions of OR and POV, and based on a simple reading of the referenced Holy See document, the term "very nuanced" is factual and point-of-view neutral and is moreover, rather than being "OR" within the Wikipedia definition, the same term (either exactly or substantially) applied to it by most commentators. Citations in support of this last sentence are available, but since the description comes naturally to mind when reading the document, I would think they would be supererogatory rather than obligatory.

The point of my edit was to fairly attenuate the dichotomy that the original editor had, I'm sure inadvertently, through inaccurate quoting, set up between Archbishop Dolan's view and the import of the Holy See document. Your edit, in my view, had the effect of at least partially reversing that (in my view) necesary attenuation by removing from the reader the possibility of realising that the document dealt with the complexity of the issue more thoroughly that the simple quoted passed would lead one to believe.

For that reason I would think it appropriate for your edit to be reverted, or (perhaps even better) for you to propose language that you feel adequately addresses what I was attempting to convey.

Thanks very much.

Jmcrowley (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC) JMCrowley[reply]

ref Thanks for being open to discussion.

First, I agree with your assessment of the document in question ("reasonably true qualifiers"), however the qualifier "very nuanced" is at heart an editorialization, a judgement. Therefore it would have to be attributed, and if it isn't, then that would be original research. So I disagree with you on that point. A way to see this is to point out that other readers could read the document and conclude that it is not nuanced. I know that sounds implausible to you and I would agree, but let's admit that on things on this topic, there are plenty of people who just don't get nuance.

If the phrase can be attributed to reliable sources, then this is no longer OR, and it becomes an issue of editorial discretion -- one where NPOV plays a part.

As to point-of-view, this was merely a matter of tone; using that phrase gave the "subtle" impression of being apologetic. I admit there is wiggle room here; you think it is neutral, and my issue is a subtle one, so we are not far off. But that still suggests we can handle the whole thing better.

So as included without attribution, it seemed right to remove the phrase. But your concerns are valid, and the suggestion of reworking that paragraph is fine. I will say that I do not see the same strength of the dichotomy, and thus the urgency, that I take you see: once the phrase is removed the sentence appears to essentially make the implied claim that Dolan thinks the document nuanced. Given that the document itself is linked to its page, I see less imperative to qualify it. The issue appears to be that that one contentious phrase can be (and has been) read one way, while in full context of the whole document (and church tradition) it can be read differently, and specifically, Dolan does just that. Let's continue on the article's talk page. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To BACCYAK4H--I sent you several paragraphs of comment the day before yesterday with respect to your edit and the possibilities for further discussion. In the preview, they appeared to have been entered as a continuation of your comments above, but now they do not show up where I put them in this "talk." Could you let me know whether you have seen them? If you haven't, I can resend them, but don't want to duplicate. Thanks very much. Jmcrowley (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not see another comment by you in this page's history. I did do an archiving since then, so if you accidently put the comment up to and not in this section (and I didn't see it), it would have been archived and you'd miss it. But, without a doubt, there is no note of such a comment in the history (see here). So go ahead and repost if you want.

My gut instinct is to avoid the quote of the problematic phrase from the Instruction altogether, and rather state Dolan's position itself which contrasts to others' interpretations of the Instruction (if this latter can be sourced). Strictly speaking, his position is consistent with the document, so in some sense any mention of the document is superfluous. Just my $0.02. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. No need to repeat here. Please see my re-edits of today (still August 9, 2009 where I am) and my comments on the article's talk page. I do think, as you will see, that in any discussion of the question, the Holy See Instruction is now the key reference document and since his comments were, and are, made in the context of the document, the potential dichotomy between them and the key conclusions of the document needs to be dealt with explicitly. I also think that in general the article needs further work, but "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." Mt. 6,34. Liberavi animam meam (St. Bernard, Ep. 371) so I too think a move to the Article's talk page is now ripe.Jmcrowley (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know I speedy deleted Moshi Monsters as you requested. However, the reason supplied (A1: no context) wasn't accurate. No context only applies if you can't figure out what the article is supposed to be about, which wasn't the case here. However, it easily qualified under A7 (web content with no assertion of importance, so I used that as a reason for deletion.

Let me know if you have any questions, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I put too much emphasis on the "very short article" part. A7 clearly was appropriate. Sorry for the confusion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a copyright infringement. I believe that qualifies for "speedy deletion." BrianY (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised about the copyright, but I think there is another tag to put on the page for that (after blanking the content), given that the subject appears notable enough.

Normally I would have cleaned up the resumecruft myself, but there was so much... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Oops, G12 it would indeed be. I need to learn my speedy categories better note to self. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Baccyak4H, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Green schools has been removed. It was removed by Earthdayed with the following edit summary '(Added more citations.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Earthdayed before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Regarding your suggestion here: we actually did take an approach like the one you suggest on our AIDS denialism article. For a long time, the article consisted mainly of a list of AIDS-denialist technical and epidemiological arguments, each followed by a mainstream "rebuttal". After awhile, I was unhappy with this. I thought it produced useless reams of talk page discussion as people argued which primary source should be shoehorned into a "rebuttal" of which poorly-sourced AIDS-denialist argument. After all, AIDS denialism is not taken seriously by the scientific community, and thus no one bothers to officially and directly "rebut" the dozens of claims on various AIDS-denialist websites. So you either leave the erroneous impression that the claim is valid, or you're forced to construct an original-synthesis rebuttal yourself. Also, the pro/con approach created the appearance of a real scientific debate or back-and-forth, when in fact virtually no credible scientist considers AIDS-denialist claims serious enough to even bother rebutting.

That said, AIDS denialism has had a major sociopolitical impact, both in the US/Western Europe (historically) and in South Africa (depressingly, through the present day). So I experimented with trimming the pro/con debate section down to a bare summary of AIDS denialist claims and rebuttals ([3]) - after all, we link dozens of websites where people can explore them in-depth - and instead tried to focus the article on the cultural and sociopolitical context of AIDS denialism. I'm not sure it was successful - we get the occasional talk-page visitor who complains: "I wanted to see what these people believe, and instead the article goes on about Thabo Mbeki..." But we did give it a try. And I do think it's a more faithful, honest, and encyclopedic rendering of the actual weight and content of actual reliable sources on the subject.

More generally, the problem with controversial articles is that they're dominated by people who have strong opinions (pro or con). People with moderate opinions, or those who are disinterested, tend to lack the energy, vehemence, or desire to fight with the more zealous types. I think this is fairly unique to Wikipedia - most paper encyclopedias don't even bother to cover topics as wacky as AIDS denialism, so the issue of tone doesn't even come up. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am not familiar with the details of that topic here, but see its name on the noticeboard et al enough to imagine it is one of those cases.

I cannot guarantee this sociocultural approach will work all the time. But given that this project wants to be "the sum total of all human knowledge" or whatever, we can cover such topics as these, and it provides a worthy alternative. The issue is, we run into RS issues if taking the scientific debate approach. Yet there is academic (read: reliable) references to these topics, but they usually have the (sometimes unstated) premise that they are fringe (scientifically) and the only reason the coverage exists at all is because the beliefs persist despite that. So it becomes interesting and coverable in its own right.

Minor aside, I have often been wondering if there is a term for the phenomenon we see regarding sourcing for such articles, where "nature abhors a vacuum of reliable sources". Where intellectual consensus is pretty firm and thus essentially no/very few current reliable sources exist, unreliable sources suddenly become the most prominent, and editors mistakenly (or perhaps not mistakenly) start taking prominence for reliability. There must be a name for such a phenomenon. It would be helpful to have it, to be able to talk about this phenomenon in a more specific, rigorous and tangible way as it is a recurring problem on such articles.

Re strong opinions (pro or con), I find an interesting irony here. Much like Phaedrus's professorship stint in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, where he felt the most identification with his failing students, I find myself editing such articles in ways that are more often sympathetic to the fringe positions. Yet my strong opinions (when they exist, and are relevant) are clearly mainstream. Probably because the overly aggressive mainstream editing is "less bad" and easier to fix than the advocatory editing (a few copyedits vs. trips to the library). That's probably why I binge edit group theory articles and the like, from time to time. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We both had fairly long comments on WP:Paid editing (guideline) in the same minute. I'm guessing yours was not a reaction to mine, but it might read like it if people don't note the times. Feel free to improve the "pool rules"! Smallbones (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, the followups show no confusion. If only I could say the same about my grasp of the history of the page. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Baccyak4H, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Charter for Compassion has been removed. It was removed by Kevyn with the following edit summary 'Removed proposal for deletion -- it is clearly notable. I am working to improve style.'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Kevyn before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had contributed to this article. Are you interested in working with me to improve it significantly? I have been reading Christopher West and Wiegel's book. I would like to work with someone to make this a decent article. NancyHeise ^talk 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I have not been in much of a writing mood lately, although do a lot of gnoming and minor wordsmithing. So while I don't expect to write a lot there, I will definitely keep an eye on any efforts.

One hurdle you may have is that most if not all reliable sources I have ever seen about TotB fall into one of two camps: the author is a staunch advocate of it (Weigel and West come to mind), or the author does not agree with some of the theological premises, and then proceeds to ridicule the conclusions, an intellectually disingenuous exercise at best. So good sourcing might be a minor challenge.

You should know there is an article on Catholic theology of the body which is in some sense a superset of this article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not know someone made another article covering TOB. That one looks a lot more extensive than what I had in mind. I want to make a page specifically focusing on John Paul II's work. I have not read about the criticism of it yet but I think a comprehensive article should include a discussion about that criticism and identify it. If you know of sources discussing it feel free to post them on my talk page or the article talk page. I won't be able to really delve into this for several weeks but I am using my free time to read up on it as much as I can. It is really a big issue in the Church right now. The Archdiocese of Miami requires all engaged couples to take a course on it before they can be married in the Church. I think a one page summary Wikipedia article on it might be popular at least within the Catholic population. NancyHeise ^talk 21:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]