Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Littleolive oil (talk | contribs) at 19:52, 1 March 2008 (→Bleep: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, and Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, Wndl42! Thanks for joining the fray over at the Corporate Personhood Debate article. It is too bad that corporate personhood has been translated, via redirect, into the Wikiality newspeak non-equivalent (and inappropriately capitalized) Corporate Personhood Debate. In any case, the article you have been editing needs to be retitled, or moved over to where it belongs at Corporate personhood. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Misplaced Pages experience:

• Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Misplaced Pages and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Wndl42, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and my response

Hi Ombudsman,

Thank you, for your kind welcome and extremely helpful tips (and reminders)!

FYI, I created the page title "Corporate Personhood Debate" to create a place to restore the original "Corporate personhood" article and the topic it represents -- after another user had redirected the latter to "Juristic person" and moved all of it's contents to the "talk" page of an intermediate page, "Juristic person/CP". All of this appeared to me to be (possibly) motivated by a POV in favor of censoring or camoflaging the controversy.

It appeared to me like someone found a way to effectively 'delete' the Corporate personhood page without going through the process of nominating it for deletion and gaining concensus. Perhaps this was not intentional, but as a result, the "Juristic person" page is now tagged non-NPOV because all the POV wars over Personhood/personhood are mucking up what is an important article on the legal concept, and now Misplaced Pages does not have good articles on either "Juristic person" (legal idea) OR Corporate personhood (controversy).

Looking for Misplaced Pages precedent for this, I examined another politically controversial topic, abortion, and noted that we finally achieved a 'peaceful' outcome (nutrality concensus) AND excellent content by providing separate pages for an encyclopedic entry on Abortion, and for Abortion Debate. This seemed to me to be the best way to solve the issue and restore the "political controversy" topic as a recognized element of US political landscape, while silmultaneously allowing a path to eventually achieve nutrality on the "Juristic person" legal article under WikiProject Law.

Regarding capitalization, I chose Personhood purposefully, as the debate/controversy is over the extent to which the "legal personality" of a corporation has proceeded from treating corporations properly as 'legal/juristic persons' under the law to the (opponents say) increasingly inappropriate treatment of corporations as Persons (natural human beings), thereby conferring "Personhood" status equal to that of natural persons in some important and controversial areas. I think that "personhood" versus "Personhood" is one way of highlighting the core of the debate/controversy.

This having been said...ultimately I don't think the Personhood vs. personhood is all THAT important and I >>happily<< defer to you on this matter...

Anyway, with the restoration of the original "Corporate personhood" page to "Corporate Personhood Debate", all of the talk pages seem to have been restored as well, and I commented and documented my changes on the "Juristic person" page as well, if you want to check out the history.

As a fair disclosure, my POV is first and foremost against censorship of the topic, secondly that Misplaced Pages presents neutral POV on both topics, (the 'thing' and the 'debate', and thirdly -- I am admittedly on the anti-Personhood side of the controversy. I am also a neophyte here and greatly appreciate your help and interest!

Again, thanks for the warm welcome and I hope you will continue to look in on the topic and keep an eye on me/others for civility and POV, and further "wiki tricks" (intentional or not).

Thanks (again),

riverguy42 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Case citations...

...should be italicized - e.g. Smith v. Jones, 123 So. 2d 456 (1999). Also, please try to use the full case citation where possible (most can be tracked down fairly easily on the Internet). Cheers! bd2412 T 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed...will do ASAP...thanks,

Corporate Personhood Debate

Although you present a compelling rationale about the majority of discussion of corporate personhood being about the debate over it, the same could be said about abortion (or affirmative action, or global warming, or the alternative minimum tax). This is precisely why the main article on any of these topics should describe what the thing is and a separate article (referenced from the main article) should describe the controversy surrounding it.

I'm all for structuring both articles so that one naturally leads readers to the other, but irrespective of the dispute over corporate personhood, it is a thing that presently exists and that people have to understand in their business dealings. That was the rationale behind my restoration of the previous redirect - perhaps we can resolve this by having a summary and reference to the debate article early on in the juristic person article? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am feeling SOOO new here and ignorant of this world...thanks...

re: "...the same could be said about abortion..."

Absolutely - that is the first place I looked for Misplaced Pages precedent. There are two excellent pages, one for Abortion and one for Abortion Debate. That's where I'm hoping to take this, because the "Juristic person" page is sorely non-NPOV and, under the scope of WikiProject Law should (I imagine) be relieved of the POV wars.

re: "perhaps we can resolve this by having a summary and reference to the debate article early on in the juristic person article?"

That would help, but the issue of "personhood" is associated with the debate/controversy and not with the legal concept, and if there MUST be a redirect, I would like to see Corprorate personhood redirect to the debate rather than the WP:Law definition of a "juristic person".

I'm not sure if this can be better solved with a disambiguaiton page, what do you think?

And OBTW...thanks VERY much for the civility and help...riverguy42 17:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter, although I think a disambiguation page is not needed (after all, we are only looking at two concepts which are already related). In retrospect, I'm ok with the current setup (although it does seem to defy convention a bit). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sun Myung Moon

Hi, Wnd. Thank you for your lengthy analysis of my recent contribs.

You may be surprised to find that I agree with much of what you said. I will reply with indented comments on my talk page. In particular, I appreciate the depth of your analysis on the "charged/complained" thing. You are right, and if you haven't already done so, I'm going to revert my own edit. "Charged" is certainly the right word, and I'm happy that (1) you pointed this out and (2) took so much time to explain why it is the right word! :-)

See you at talk:Ed Poor. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for bringing up the subject and object relationship here. This is something I've been meaning to straighten out for decades (literally). --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And also thanks for thinking carefully about the best way to word a subtopic like views on women. I have a quote rattling around in my head about men and women having equal value, despite having different "positions" or "roles". Maybe you can locate it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. You might want to check out my addition to the article Rev. Moon's theology seems to embrace a "physical form follows spiritual function" thoughtstream as regards Genesis -- which is the right basic idea, it follows many other eastern traditions in this regard. I wish he'd gone a little deeper down this path all the way to it's spiritual-linguistic roots before reaching his conclusions about Genesis in the "Divine Principle". For example, if Rev. Moon had taken the time to deeply understand the Hebrew language in which Genesis was written, he'd have discovered the much broader, deeper and (IMO) more beautiful view of man-woman that is told there, rather than the 'subject-object' metaphor. This view can only be derived when one uses the unfortunately and utterly insufficient hebrew-to-whatever language translations, ALL of which fail to adequately convey the mind of G-d as described in the original hebrew composition. I think this is particularly sad in Rev. Moon's case, as he certainly understands, perhaps more than anyone else, the myriad ways in which the Korean language is superior to English these purposes, and Rev. Moon has had lots to (rightly) say about this, but he fell into the "tower-of-babel" trap of presuming that Korean was the best language just because it was better than english. Anyway, what I see in the "subject-object" metaphor is shards of evidence of the common-to-all-religions "Golden Thread of Truth". Unfortunately virtually all of the world's judeo-christian derived faiths take their own linguistic interpretations and build dogma around them, and it's the dogma that divides rather than unites. UC dogma is particularly divisive in this regard, and in this, Rev. Moon shows an all-too-human failing. I hope that you and the other UC member editors will help focus some attention on the unifying elements of UC theology.

The connotations of the English words subject and object do not quite match the meanings of the Korean terms juche (추체) and daesang (대상), particularly as used by Rev. Moon. I really wish the translators of Divine Principle had left these particular terms untranslated, so that English readers would realize they have no precise counterparts in Western philosophy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to a point, but in the end Rev. Moon needs to be ultimately responsible for his words and "take the heat". I still think Moon's theology here, namely that women are "receptacles" for "seed", is sadly off-base. The extensive surrounding context in which he used those words leaves little room for reinterpretation regardless of any "translation" difficulties, indicating (to me anyway) that Moon has not (yet) understood the 'poetry' of Genesis as understood by native Hebrew linguists.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work on Bible code! Λυδαcιτγ 07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, just the improvements you've made in the past few days. Λυδαcιτγ 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page - Sun Myung Moon

Here is an archive of a discussion that got fairly heated in which I failed to "assume good faith" and went off on what I saw as an example of Tendentious Editing on the part of some Unification Church members with respect to the BLP for Sun Myung Moon. I'm placing this here "for the record" and (as there seems to be a developing consensus around solving the issue), removing my "rant" from the talk page at Sun Myung Moon riverguy42 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section removed

I removed this whole section, some of it could be put back however if the information is cited:

Other criticisms: theocracy, anti-semitism, anti-gay, views on women

Moon, perhaps one of the most controversial religious leaders, has been widely criticized. Some civil libertarians consider his call for unity between religion and politics is contrary to the principle of separation of church and state.

There have been objections toward his saying that the Holocaust is partly an indirect consequence of some important Jewish leaders, especially John the Baptist, not supporting Jesus which contributed to his murder by the Roman government (see Unification Church and anti-Semitism).

In a speech to church members in 1997, Moon said: "What is the meaning of lesbians and homosexuals? That is the place where all different kinds of dung collect. We have to end that behavior. When this kind of dirty relationship is taking place between human beings, God cannot be happy." and referred to homosexuals people as "dung-eating dogs".

Rev. Moon's views on women as "objects" in a subject-object relationship with their husbands generated further criticism. In 1996, Moon summarized these views;

"American women have the tendency to consider that women are in the subject position. However, woman's shape is like that of a recepticle. The concave shape is a receiving shape. Whereas the convex shape symbolizes giving. When water is poured into a container does it fill from the edge of the container, or from the deepest bottom? (Deepest bottom.) Since man contains the seed of life, he should plant it in the deepest place. Does woman contain the seed of life? (No.) Absolutely not. Then if you desire to receive the seed of life you have to become an absolute object. In order to qualify as an absolute object you need to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to your subject."

I have never heard of any civil libertarians criticizing Rev. Moon on the issue of church and state. Mainly because their interest is to protect individuals against the powers of government. In fact the ACLU in New York supported him in his tax case vs. the US government. Also uncited.

The statement about the Holocaust is uncited. It is a legitimate criticism so could be put back with a cite.

The speech cited was not mainly about homosexuality, so it is misrepresented. There is also no cite that says it caused controversy or criticism.

The inclusion of the quote about women is original research. The cite from Robert Parry's site does not show that this "generated further critism." Mr. Parry certainly has the right to criticise as much as he likes but he is motivated by his own political ideology, not by anything Rev. Moon says. To say otherwise is also original research.

Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you have been asked politely and repeatedly to stop blanking content. In this case of your latest section-blanking, you apparently have not read or are being intentionally obtuse regarding Misplaced Pages's definitions and policies on OR in general, and also in the BLP context. The reasons you gave for blanking this entire section resemble a smoke screen to cover your apparent COI-POV driven motives for blanking this section.

Is he going to listen to you, if you start off with personal remarks? Let's just stick to the issues: in other words, I won't question your motives if you don't question mine, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Each criticism/controversy in the section you blanked IS cited, and IS supported by Rev. Moon's own words (and this IS the section where controversies and criticisms are supposed to go).

Well, I see no reason to delete Rev. Moon's words on any issue that he himself considers important. Perhaps these could be retrieved and placed in a "views of" section. For example, views on women, views on exposing corruption, views on being nice to people who hate him? ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

On "what is controversial?", outside of your Unification Church, Rev. Moon is MOST notable because he is controversial. This is why the section you blanked is critical. If you or anyone else here doubts this, an explicit news archive search (NOT a general web search) on "Sun Myung Moon" and either "controversy" or "controversial" should put that notion to bed conclusively. More than 1,270 hits from Google's archive of recognized NEWS SOURCES yields a 30 year history (and a nice bar-graph by year of publication) to show strong evidence that Moon among the most controversial figures on the planet, in religion, politics, media, etc. (FYI, the distant second place award (at 763 hits) goes to Scientology leader L. Ron Hubbard

As a Unification Church member, your well known COI and POV, and your long history of tendentious editing has generated many polite requests for you to stop blanking content.

Because of your COI you are unqualified to be the final judge of whether Rev. Moon's statements and the criticisms of them represent "controvery" or not.

I would define a controversy as a dispute between two sides which disagree with each other strongly. Especially if facts or principles are involved. I have to agree with you that in any case where Rev. Moon has stated his position on an issue, and there is significant disagreement from others then there is a controversy.

How about a section on "controversial views"? We can start with "dirty dung eating dogs" who won't get into heaven. There's even a Bible quote from the end of Revelations 22 we can throw in: "Outside the gates are the dogs and fornicators." --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the most disturbing tendency exhibited in your pattern of tendentious edits is that you appear intent on making the Misplaced Pages entries on Rev. Moon and many other UC pages more closely resemble (in content and structure) the parallel Unification Church-owned wiki "New World Encyclopedia".

Is Steve doing that? What a waste of time. We should just link to that article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think something is improperly cited (and IMO you are flat wrong here) then, given your COI and POV you should TAG things that you think are improperly cited and CEASE BLANKING content and sections.

Misplaced Pages is not your forum for de-controversializing Rev. Moon by censoring criticisms and controversies that you personally don't like or disagree with. That function is handled quite nicely by the Unification Church's own wiki). Just because YOU PERSONALLY "have never heard of any civil libertarians criticizing Rev. Moon on the issue of church and state" does not mean that he has not been so criticized, and it does NOT justify your blanking the entire section. With your COI and POV problems, the burden of proof is on you. Suggest you READ the sources that have been cited. And in case you didn't know, (1) criticism around "civil liberties" does NOT need to be sourced back to someone that YOU judge to be a "civil libertarian" in order to be valid and notable, and (2) the fact that "The speech cited was not mainly about homosexuality." does NOT mean that this citation "misrepresents" Rev. Moon's views, and (3) your statment that the critic "is motivated by his own political ideology, not by anything Rev. Moon says" is blatently and absolutely false. Indeed, the speeches cited contain the EXACT WORDS that generated the criticism and resulting controversy. For example, how do you arrive at the idea that the speech cited on the "dung eating dogs" controversy must be "mainly about homosexuality" in order to be a valid citation? Steve, that's either (a) just plain silly, or (b) a smoke screen tactic.

I think we went over some of this before, and I still agree with you! :-)

There is no way to de-controversialize Rev. Moon, and Misplaced Pages is not a place for hopeless quests. (Other than to write about a hopeless quest, as in "Man of La Mancha". Steve, can you back off on this please? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Question - if you don't like the fact that someone attributed the criticism around church and state to "civil libertarians", then why didn't you just change it to "critics"? Given your history, your COI and your POV pushing through tendentious editing, I would suggest that you were just looking for another ostensibly valid reason (smoke screen) to hide behind and justify your blanking the entire section.

This is a good suggestion: "critics" is a good, neutral word. If it turns out that some of them ARE civil libertarians, we can find a way to mention this fact. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have been working hard to make sure this article is balanced in it's presentation, and I have invested much effort in adding balance (including a generally complimentary overview of Rev. Moon's Basic Beliefs so that some of these criticisms can be taken in context of the basic teachings), and I have been commended by at least one UC member (Ed Poor) in this regard.

Steve, I think he's got a point here. Misplaced Pages is about balance. Let's not delete; let's add more about his teachings or accomplishments. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You on the other hand have displayed a single-minded tendency toward censorship of criticism and controversy surrounding Rev. Moon, here and on MANY other UC related pages. Now, I have just invested (wasted) an hour dis-assembling your smoke screen - time I'd hoped to spend supporting Ed Poor in his request to me to help add some context around the "subject-object" relationship.

Steve, I think River is sincere. Let's work together, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now...do I need to seek to have you blocked from UC related entries on this basis, or are you going to lay off on blanking content?

Ultimately I think (hope) you might just have some good things to add, -- and so I hope you will choose the latter approach. I'm out of patience.

riverguy42 (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're out, have some of mine? ;-) Doctor Ed (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Here is a suggestion. How about making a "criticism" section to Divine Principle and moving the "subject/object" "controversy" over there?Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. River, do you agree? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the controversy and criticism that have been generated (from what I see) are based more on Rev. Moon's post-Divine Principle speeches and talks. "Dung eating dogs" is not (I think) in The Divine Principle. I think the criticism is leveled at Rev. Moon himself, so I'm not seeing the reasoning behind taking it out of the bio and putting it into "Divine Principle". For another example, see my reply to Ed on "subject object" below.riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, as we appear to be in dialog here, I will (next edit) tone down (delete) some of my more incendiary language, and let's keep talking...riverguy42 (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to enable your email. -Exucmember (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to self...here

Consciousness causes collapse

If anything, the onus is on the authors of this page to provide a single example of any light shed on any point in physics (not the amateur philosophy of Wigner etc.) by this idea. To be consistent, I suggest you remove the phrase "... is an obsolete scientific theory" from the entry on phlogiston. There is no citation for that one either.

Do you have any credentials to judge any scientific theory? If so, perhaps you would like to edit your user page to that effect.

Dave Kielpinski (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I asserted none, and made that clear at your talk page. I wonder why you ask, as it seems irrelevant in the context of WP:RS. Nevertheless, any credentials I may or may not have pale in comparison to Mikhail Lomonosov. I merely point out that here on Misplaced Pages any claims of scientific consensus around contemporary controversies must be cited, as per WP:RS, specifically:

"Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

Certainly if there is such a consensus, it should have been as easy for you to cite a reliable source for that consensus as it was to find and reference and post here about phlogiston.

Also, WRT your suggestion; "To be consistent, I suggest you remove the phrase "... is an obsolete scientific theory" from the entry on phlogiston. There is no citation for that one either."

Sure there is, maybe you missed it. It's here. Whatever controversy there once was over phlogiston is long dead and well buried, but you knew that.

riverguy42 (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I way don't understand that. Someone didn't like calling phlogiston an obsolete scientific theory? Why? Or am I confusing phlogiston with aether? Pete St.John (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The commentary began with the editor's lame attempt to discredit my knowledge of the topic area by comparing my defence of the Penrose-Hameroff model of consciousness in the context of Consciousness causes collapse with someone who would attempt to assert scientific support for the long discredited phlogiston theory. In other words, the editor dropped by my talk page to call me an idiot because he couldn't justify himself in the debate, and was being a "sore loser". You are reading my response to this editor's condescending personal attack. WNDL42 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Still a bit confusing :-) but I'll take it as nobody actually endosoring phlogiston as an extant scientific theory; apparently someone was making a rhetorical point that I just didn't get. That said, regarding your comment at my Talk, the content issue seems to be labelling CCC as "generally derided as pseudoscience". I can see that the wording could be improved; e.g., "the overwhelming majority of physicists acquainted with the idea of CCC diride it as pseudoscience" or "...deride it as a confusion among nonspecialists", etc. I think the way to reach consensus would be to find good wording for that idea. It's important that readers not be confused by any presentation of CCC as an alternative theory to any actual physics. Perhaps the lead should be "CCC is a misunderstanding of quantuum mechanics" followed later by "some people believe that CCC is a viable alternative scientific theory". The main thrust of the article should be consistent with contemporary science, as we are a secular encyclopedia, but we should acknowledge public perceptions, as they are politically and socially germane. I don't at all mind people believing in CCC, but people who believe that CCC is conventional science are mistaken, and people who believe that it is self-evident are fools. Pete St.John (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Truth is that you can't say that about the ideas that consciousness is associated causally with wave function collapse -- because the only thing that every major scientist in the field agrees on (consensus) is that it's unfalsifyable from either end. True -- we don't need consciousness to support current research in QM, but that's only because current research can't really "model" consciousness in the first place to test it. That's a far cry from "pseudoscience" (whatever the hell THAT is). WNDL42 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The current model of consciousness is in cognitive neuroscience, not physics. Generally phsycists regard unfalsifiable hypotheses as bad science. You may wish to pursue a nonstandard theory, but I urge you to admit that conventional science does not respect CCC as scientific. Pete St.John (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Penrose-Hameroff model of consciousness is the leading candidate for a more complete theory and it's gaining steam, and it does explicitly includes physics. The scientific method begins with (a) a theory or a conjecture that provides a new or better explanation for something not yet fully undertood (like gravity), and then (b) attempts to devise experiments to test the theory. It often happens that a theory exists for many years before technology exists to test the theory, for example we build and fund superconducting supercolliders (to the tune of billions of dollars) to test certain theories that have been untestable (thereby unfalsifiable) for 50 years or more. There is no "admitting" that conventional science does not "repect" something that it can neither prove, nor disprove. As David Albert says on the topic, emphatically..."We don't KNOW that."

Anyway, as I said...the reason I supported deleting the CCC article was because it was a POV fork for attaching allegations of "pseudoscience" to what can properly be called an untested theory. By the way, Victor Stenger (the biggest "Bleep" critic of all) just this week issued a restatement and clarification of his previous dismissal of Orch-OR, and it looks like a careful and stepwise capitulation, an olive branch to Hameroff and Penrose because I think that maybe Brian D. Josephson gave him a little "dressing down", or perhaps he's wising up on his own. I believe that Stenger is the last remaining staunch opponent...but he's moving in the direction of softening his stance on CIC, from what I read.

While you're at it, take a look at this...stuff WNDL42 (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Hi,

You may change your signature - on talk pages you've got a totally different signature versus user name. Very confusing. Unless you've got a really good reason, it makes talk pages harder to follow and attribute who is saying what, when. A particular problem when you're trying to use diffs.

Agreed. I would like to be known as Riverguy42, but not sure how to do it.

Also, you just dumped 9K worth of text on a talk page. That much reading is really time consuming. You may want to consider shorter posts. WLU (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason for this was that I used an offline editor and had to copy and re-paste the entire thing. I am refuting some efforts to portray me as a bad-faith editor by a pair of editors who share histories as particularly difficult and tendentious editors. Recently, one of these editors was caught in a blatant lie about his reasons for citing WP:RS as justification for repeatedly blanking my edits.

Further point - this set of edits is quite long, and contains two links - one of which should be a wikipage (and therefore isn't a real reference because wikipedia isn't a reliable source. WP:PROVEIT states that when an edit is challenged, the burden is on the add-ee (that'd be you in this case) to source the contested information. Also consider if the non-wiki source you provided () is reliable, and represents all viewpoints on the matter. Should it be qualified? Also, what is the tone like - does it portray things as truth? Can it be shortened? Is it overly long considering there is a main article on day-age creationism? Creationism is a HUGE page, adding large amounts of text when there's a more appropriate main aritlce isn't usually a good idea - see WP:SS. Articles are spun off because the original article is too unweildy to use. Also, is the edit neutral? Is it overly sympathetic to one perspective? In my opinion, this block of text was appropriately removed from this page, but may go in Day age, if it's not already there. But it would need better sources, or consensus from other editors that it works. WLU (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have conceded much (most) of these points, and am in the process of improving sources. Please do note that I have deferred, based on talk page discussions, restoring my edit until the concerns expressed have been resolved. Thanks for the notes.riverguy42 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You might try reading WP:TALK, mostly for the idea that you shouldn't break up posts regularly, exception only (in other words, only post beneath other's comments, even if you're replying to a comment above).

Regards your name, you could try looking at WP:U, especially here. Or you could just start a new account, stop using this one, and put a note of your new name. I'd see if you can get your name changed first at WP:U.

Finally, creationism, evolution and all the controversial flashpoints between the two sets of pages get a lot of trolls and sockpuppets. The civility is much, much lower, WP:AGF as well, and biting is the norm. It attracts a lot of POV-pushing cranks. If you are trying to edit with a pro-creationism view, or even just adding information, excellent sources or toe-ing the line are both things that may help your edits stay up. Unfortunately. WLU (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, from what I can see no-one is known as Riverguy42 (talk · contribs), so you could just create the account. WLU (talk)

You got a very civil reply from Haf by the way, I've seen him bit and chew people before - s/he's never wrong and always works within policy (though sometimes pushing the boundaries of the policy), but dealing with the creationism pages often leads to a lapse in wikiquette. And s/he's completely right, talk pages never get {{fact}} tagged. Ever. It's not a matter of annoying him, it's actually wildly inappropriate. You may want to have a gander at this essay I wrote - it gives an overview of the wiki process and whatnot. WLU (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed your essay. Yeah...I got a perspective on what I think is Hrafn's POV and apparent editing demeanor from his edit history and talk page, he bites alot but also brings alot. Your comments/essay help me put these reactions in context. Seems if someone wants to work on articles like these, it takes a very thick skin and a lot of perseverence (and a willingness to throw an elbow or two on the court). In the end I think incivil behavior (on the whole) does more to drive away good contributors and contributions than what is given back those who engage in it, no matter what the quality of their work is. I would guess that the most erudite and capable editors would have very little patience for this crap and just quit, which sucks for Misplaced Pages. Fortunately for me (and maybe for Misplaced Pages) I am not among this group.

But, I didn't find in your essay (nor can I find in WP:TALK or WP:DE) any reference to fact-tagging of talk pages. The WP:TALK guidelines seem to indicate that talk pages should be treated like any other pages in the case of problems with WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and when those problems are encountered in the context of presonal attack, well, I figured it was clearly time to throw an elbow, if that's what it takes to balance the strong POV that I see in the articles at Creationism and Day-age creationsm. Nevertheless, if there is a policy or guideline that I'm violating by fact-tagging on the talk page, I'd like to know about it. Really, I hope I'm not being dickish by asking you, I do agree with you that the tactic of fact-tagging was (in typical circumstances) quite inappropriate as you say, but I really do want to know. A willingness to ignore a rule when "necessary" does not justify my ignorance of the rule I decide to ignore.

Just for the record, I resorted to this less-than-optimal defense posture in the face of repeated and prolonged use of (a) Straw Man mis-characterizations of my edits, intended to make them (and me) appear silly, and (b) the "wear out the enemy" tactics of refutations via Proof by assertion and Argumentum ad infinitum, and (c) outright and intentional falsehoods. At some point I think this behavior constitutes a particularly vile and pernicious (though subtle) form of personal attack. I think it's a pretty good case of a couple of tendentious editors protecting their "turf" by whatever means possible. For now, I'm just patiently building a dossier in order to be ready for one of them to make good on a threat, or if things (hopefully) calm down maybe I'll just write an essay on the use of these tactics for the benefit of future editors.

You asked above, "If you are trying to edit with a pro-creationism view...", well, this is the MOST frustrating thing to me. While my personal POV should not be an issue as long as I behave, the truth is that I am absolutely aligned with the POV that NO form of "creationsim" should be endorsed or taught or tolerated in a secular democracy, same as the editors I'm in conflict with. I am very Jeffersonian in this regard. What I see and am trying to correct is the problem that the entire set of Misplaced Pages articles on this topic are the result of many years of battles between the extreme polar opposite POV's, and as a result there is little or no tolerance for any POV from the middle, any information that would diminish the "black and white" contrast that keeps the "battle lines" clearly defined is not tolerated by either side. For example, the idea that interpretations of Genesis in which a "day" is something other than a "earth-based 24 'hour' day based on the rotation of our planet" are as old as the Jewish faith (and I am not Jewish either), and they are not merely "inventions" dreampt up by creationists to evade the conclusions of science, but on reviewing these articles, I not that thst is the "clear battle lines" POV that these articles portray. The editors who "own" the creationism pages seem intent on making sure that nothing presented on Misplaced Pages serves to diminish the contrast between the armies, and this serves to make sure the treatment of these topics is as inflammatory and incendiary as possible. For me, if I'm "throwing my elbows around", it's on behalf of that set of views that seek to mitigate, rather than accentuate the differences. Quite frankly, the "Creationism" series on Misplaced Pages is a joke and an embarrasment to Wilkipedia.

As I write this, I realize that I do have a minor critique of your essay you may wish to consider, and it is this. Your essay (and also your advice to me) seems to spend a lot of time apologizing and explaining away the incivility of tendentious editors. I would think that the community of Wikipedians and Misplaced Pages itself would be better served if we were more strict about behaviour on controversial topics and not less strict. In this sense I think your essay tends to spend too much time "explaining" and in some sense justifying "bad behaviour" -- at least that was the impression I got. As I said, I think your essay is very good and this is a minor point, I'd welcome your thoughts.

Thanks again WLU, and do let me know where I can find some info on fact-tagging talk pages.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Wow, I thought I was the lone rider on the LaGrotta article. Your comments are certainly helpful for balance on the discussion. Perhaps you have some thoughts for BLP policy as it relates to undue weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Undue_Weight ----Jkp212 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a clear case of an article created solely to advance a partisan political POV. Thanks for your comments, and leave another message to let me know how it proceeds. Also, if the subject of the article is willing to post a comment, that will have more weight than a boatload of POV pushers.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a problem with your disagreement on this question (surely it would be quite wrong of me if I did!), but I would appreciate it if you didn't make statements that at least sound like you see me as writing somewhat in bad faith — especially if you're trying to demonstrate up above that you're not a bad-faith editor yourself. Nyttend (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Urgent matter?

My apologies, and I will remove my implicit references to you. I should have characterized the edit and not (by implicit reference) "the editor who created the article". I merely stumbled upon this article and noted the following in violation of WP policy of "Do No Harm", and I felt it necessary to tie the publication date of the news item to the date and time of the article's creation. I do not "see you as writing somewhat in bad faith" and I hope you don't see me that way, but I do think this is a very serious matter based on the following observations:

• In spite of the fact that Frank LaGrotta had a very long career in public service (20 years), this article did not come into existance until the very day on which the charges were made public -- within hours.

• The first version of the article did not say anything of substance about the person except that he was a PA Democrat and that he was up on corruption charges.

• The article failed to mention the highly notable, easily sourceable and balancing POV that the charges are alleged to be politically motivated. This is a gross omission in a BLP. The identification of LaGrotta as a Democrat combined with the failure to identify the prosecutor as a Republican gives the article a very bad slant.

• Whether intentional or not, the article had the effect of serving a single purpose, that of using Misplaced Pages to promulgate and amplify the news of the day around the fact that Mr. LaGrotta is a politicial figure in the Democratic party accused of criminal conduct. The effect of Misplaced Pages as a "megawatt bullhorn" to announce the news, in this context "does harm". This kind of "harm" is very serious business. Presumably Mr. LaGrotta will have a trial, or will plead. In either case, this "effect" (intended or unintended, of Misplaced Pages serving as Corbett's "bullhorn") could prejudice jurors and/or weaken Mr. Lagrotta's negotiating position.

• The article has the clear effect of serving (intentionally or unintentionally) the explicitly stated purpose of an organization (the GOP) in "getting the word out" on corruption among the opposition party, and the "single source" citations have the further effect of reinforcing a parallel editorial campaign of the "Beaver County Times", as seen in several examples here.

• The language used in the article's original version, (again, created on the very day that the news came out) contains nothing positive on Mr. LaGrotta, cites only a single source (the Beaver County Times), cites that source twice, and merely summarizes these two news reports. This gives the clear impression of an NPOV problem.

So....for all this time Misplaced Pages did not have an article on this person's life or accomplishments until the day the charges hit the newspapers, and on that day (within hours) we all of a sudden have an article. To me, that looks like prima facie evidence that the article was specifically created to advance a political agenda against Mr. LaGrotta and his political party, and in "spreading the news" this gives all appearances of "political muckraking", and if so this is clearly a gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy on BLPs -- specifically the "Do No Harm" clause.

If this article came into existence for the sole purpose of promulgating negative information about someone, then this article needs to be deleted immediately. Also, the huge chorus of votes to "Keep" the article does seem strange. The fact that so many editors are suddenly so passionately aroused about the need to keep an article on this person gives every early appearance of "POV pushing" in the context of an agenda. Again, appearances may be (often times are) deceiving. But (especially in that case of a BLP), I think a quick look at the edit histories of the voters might give further creedence to the idea that an "agenda" is at work here, and may be warranted. Misplaced Pages's problems here are (a) rigorous enforcement of the policies around BLP's, (b) vigilance around the "politicization" of Misplaced Pages, and (c) rigorous enforcement of the specific policy of "Do No Harm" in the BLP context. Agreed?

If we are further agreed that you are in good faith here, I'd suggest that (a) you delete the article, or (b) we put the matter in front of an appropriate WP review process for BLP's. Thanks, and let me know what you want to do. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You should put some of these points on the article's talk page. I have commented there. Thanks --Jkp212 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the source for the first two paragraphs — the intro and the personal life? If you're concerned with following BLP's undue weight principles, please be careful also to observe the following requirement:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Unless you're going to delete the rest of the article, don't delete its source. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sources (temporarily) because they are "Beaver County Times" articles that are explicitly associated with the charges that we are discussing, they present the POV in a non-neutral manner and therefore the sources are not compatible with NPOV criteria for sources in a BLP. There are far better (see NPOV) sources for the lightweight bio that remains and I will add them. In the meantime, I think the case against citing the sources you referenced was clearly and convincingly made on the talk page (and above), especially as the editorial campaign I illustrated shows a strong bias at the paper. You might also note that I deleted the "balancing" sources as well, because they also are not NPOV. OK?

If there is something especially important to you that justifies using the Beaver County Times as a source for simple bio information, rather than using an NPOV source, please advise. And please be careful of using the article to provide links to a particular POV, it gives the appearance of...

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read the Times? It is typically much more friendly toward the Democratic Party than toward the Republican Party, and there's nothing different in the articles that I used. There's nothing POV in the articles: they simply stated that he'd been arrested and was to be arraigned for alleged violations of the ethics laws. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WRT: "stated that he'd been arrested and was to be arraigned for alleged violations"...That's EXACTLY why these sources need to come out (temporarily), in the context of BLP. Misplaced Pages is not a "news amplifier", and Misplaced Pages has the effect of "amplifying" the news, giving undue weight to the controversy relative to the rest of the subject's life. Have I somehow been unclear or obtuse here?riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a direct quote from the article? I return to college in Beaver County this weekend, and I'll have access to the exact paper copy of the newspaper. You aren't at all clear what is wrong with having these statements in the context of the news — what's the difference between this and the O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case article, except that the other is an entire article rather than a section? Your arguments against it are the same as the arguments for deleting that article, which were shot down as the article was kept: both are taken directly from multiple neutral (unless you're going to attack the liberal Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for attacking a Democrat for political reasons) sources, and this one at least contained nothing unsourced from these sources. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The basis for my edits is that "Misplaced Pages is not news", as other editors have also pointed out to you, and that in the context of a BLP this is a very serious matter. So, a direct quote frome the article is purely and utterly irrelevant. As has been clearly demonstrated and as you have subsequently admitted, this BLP came into existence when you created it solely to report the "news" as you read it, from a single source. That is the only issue here. The matter of whether the "Beaver County Times" has a GENERAL bias or not is also purely irrelevant. I illustrated that a currently running editorial campaign shows that there is a non-neutral POV on THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC. Sorry to shout, but you seem intent on introducing Straw_Man mis-characterizations of my editorial intent here, and by mischaracterzing my argument, you insult me and distort the discussion. Please stop, and keep this discussion focused on the accuracy of analysis on the extent to which your edit violated these two Misplaced Pages policies.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I'd also like to note that I've left a note on the WP:Pennsylvania talk page, asking for someone to expand the article's coverage of him in materials unrelated to the current controversy. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks needed, but do be aware that I apologized for failure to assume good faith. I should have assumed that you merely made a mistake, and that you were not previously aware of the policies you violated. Your edit, on the other hand is still in violation, and in the context of a BLP, I think you need to revert your re-introduction of the "news" you reported via Misplaced Pages. Assuming you do this, I will continue to assume good faith on your part...if not, I won't.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, to be perfectly clear...I will interpret any further distortions by you of my editorial intent via Straw_Man tactics as incivility, and to the extent that you continue, as personal attacks. So, before continuing please review each of these concepts and understand that my edits are based the opinions of multiple editors that you are in violation of the POLICY (not "guideline") here, specifically that Misplaced Pages is not News, and this is even more critically important (and rigidly enforced) in the context of BLPs. That is the only matter for discussion here, Ok? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, to address your rhetorical question:

"...what's the difference between this and the O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case article, except that the other is an entire article rather than a section?".

If you have read and applied the policy points I have thus far made above, you should already have your answer now and understand why the two articles are different. Also, you should review the concept of "notability" and then you will even more fully understand that there can be no meaningful comparison of OJ Simpson's notability and LaGrotta's notability in the context of THIS matter. Finally, I have not looked into the Simpson matter here, but any precedent set there does not trump Misplaced Pages policy, so again I ask you to stick to the facts of THIS matter.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration on Sun Myung Moon article

Thanks for all your recent contribs to SMM. I am particularly grateful for this copy-edit. You turned my thoughts, which were just off the top of my head, into properly-expressed enyclopedia prose! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ed...that's high praise for me (a strong critic of Moon and the Church) coming from you as a member of the Church. I am quite pleased that you see me as someone who can have a strong POV and yet strive for and achieve fairness and balance in my edits. I really enjoy working with you, especially because our collaborations have been productive in spite of our differences. Thanks for the kind note. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with criticism. Anything that's good can withstand a few potshots; anything that's bad deserves the criticism anyway.

Now about theocracy, let's try to create a sort of workshop. Rev. Moon did indeed say that "... United Nations should invite True Parents to take the position of Secretary-General in eternity." (source: Moon's speech on Foundation Day 1997) I have no problem with this: it's an exact quote.

Our only dispute is over what this means. Do you see it as a call for a one-world government? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I see it, on reading lots of stuff from the Church, and especially after seeing Neil Bush stand up front and center at the "Abel U.N." leadership conference in Japan last month. Great photo op, and lots of cool pictures.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Now please take a look at User:Ed Poor/Moon on democracy. I invite your comments. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks, and I will look at Moon on democracy.....oh, and please check your e-mail. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

history

User ScienceApologist was provided guidance at ArbCom to remove the following personal attack from my talk page and make an apology. See here.

As the editor has declined ArbCom guidance, I am assuming the intent of the editor is to allow the following Personal Attack to remain here as part of this editors resume at Misplaced Pages.

Take some physics classes 

Note that ScienceApologist has published a notice on the Fringe theories noticeboard.. The noticeboard really should alert editors when something is posted. TimidGuy (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement mention

Just wanted to make you aware that you were mentioned (only mentioned! nothing bad!) in this report on ScienceApologist. It looks like you've only been editing Misplaced Pages since the end of October 2007, less than three months. if this is the case, then I must extend my greetings, and hopes that you have not been too seriously bitten. I'm always available if you need advice or other assistance! Just drop a note on my talk page or send me an email. Dreadstar † 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the biter got a far more serious bite in return than anything he was able to inflict, and a nice addition to his resume. Case closed...justice done...karma delivers SA a little more rope to hang himself with in the future...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most excellent response on my talk page, very interesting reading with some great points and observations. There is indeed irony aplenty when applying the spade to dig up a good source by accident. Misplaced Pages has a fairly wide range of behaviorial guideance. I'd suggest reading through these...

• Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks
• Misplaced Pages:Civility
• Misplaced Pages:Harassment
• Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing

Let me know if you need more information, or any other assistance at all! Oh, and I'll remove the offending comments from your talk page. You can do it yourself, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, best bet is to set up archiving, check out: Misplaced Pages:Archiving. Dreadstar † 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been listed as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving at "What the Bleep"?

Hi Dreadstar, I agree the page was too large, but some recent and well-reasoned dialog got "put away", including this, and there's a resolution process in play...was there a reason for doing the archiving now, rather than waiting to let the mediation process percolate a bit??

Just curious, I'm a first timer in a mediation. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The page was too large and needed to have some of the material archived or at least refactored. If there are specific sections that you think should be put back, then by all means copy them from the archive page and put them back on the talk page. I was just trying to reduce the amount of material and tried not to take away anything still active and relevant. Dreadstar † 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Media update

River, in the last couple of years, two of the three main US media organs of the Unification movement have changed significantly.

Mon Frere, I really do try to look for the "good" in people and institutions first, Cato Institute is wonderful. Getting the "word out" about these changes and recent new management puts an appropriately good face on the story, and drawing attention to this as you are is all good, but after 25 years of "misbehavior" -- the world outside of unificationism needs to see the effects of these changes...we are way past "Assume Good Faith" with respect to the misdeeds of the Washington Times, Insight, etc.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The monthly World&I magazine was reduced from a bulky monthly of several hundred pages to a slim bimonthly (last issue had 88 pages); its online version is available only by subscription. Its subtitle is "Innovative Approaches to Peace" and it is published by Rev. Moon's right hand man, Chung Hwan Kwak (who is also the director of the Universal Peace Federation). I am personally acquainted with its editor-in-chief and half its editorial board, and I'm here to tell you that it directly represents core values of the movement.

Well, if it's not freely published, can you post a summary here under "fair use"? I am sincerely hoping to see these innovations and truly...I am fully expecting (hopeful of) a "maturation", please help me see it with my own eyes. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The weekly Insight has been converted into a web 'zine, and I have no idea who manages it or why (personally, I've written it off). I do not feel that it is in any way representative of the Unification movement. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Ed, if you don't know of Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Kuhner or his pre-insight history, then I'm very surprised. Insight may or may not be representative of the UC, but it is owned and subsidized by News World, so the Buck stops there. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The flagship of this media flotilla is plainly The Washington Times. While I don't think it loses quite as much as $300 million a year, it probably does get at least $100 million a year from the movement to prop it up. The Times is not ideological or biased in its news reporting, even if its editorials do express a point of view. (Does anyone doubt the objectivity of the NYT merely on account of its editorial page or endorsement of Democratic/Liberal candidates for public office?

You are right, the NYT's leanings/bias are widely discussed. But I would impishly invoke Steven Colbert, and offer that "and as we all know, reality has a well known liberal bias" ;-)

Now, Rev. Moon may have boasted about news stories which only the Washington Times would cover - and may have asserted that coverage of the Soviet Union helped lead to its dissolution. But does anyone think the USSR would shrivel up and die if false reports had been made about it? No, the WT uncovered the truth, and that is why conservatives rely upon it to counter the liberal bias of much of the rest of the media, particularly the spiking of news stories which contradicts the liberal or pro-Communist worldview. (An early editor of the WT wrote a novel called The Spike based on this kind of self-censorship.)

The Washington Times started out as a culmination of Rev. Moon and Bo Hi Pak's support for candidate Reagan, which was fine, but it all went down hill when Bush Sr. broke ranks (firing Karl Rove, for example), and the Washington Times went into the gutter from there.

The role of responsible media is supposed to be to inform the public about what's really going on, not to engage in propaganda which hides unflattering realities. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On this we are agreed. The Washington Times use of the first anniversary of 9/11 to attack public school teachers (by proxy, through the NEA) is probably the single most disgusting act of "journalistic" disintegrity in modern history, totally eclipsing Annenberg's slaughter of Milton Shapp. This makes people (like MediaWeek) disgusted and angry.

Leo Strauss described a "hierarchy" of different myths that were appropriate for a "hierarchy" of players, myths for the "unwashed masses", myths for the "troops", myths for the "field commanders", myths for the "movement leadership", etc., but with Strauss, the "truth" was reserved for the athiest "high preists" of the "church of the big lie", and in the Strauss model these "high priests" are explicitly athiest. In the neo-straussian "twist", one of these "high priests" is among the founders of Team B. I personally believe that (consistent with the Straussian model) Rev. Moon is NOT among the "high priests" of the athiest neo-straussian model that has been in play for the last 35 years. When I try to contemplate Rev. Moon as a "good" man, I have to then consider that Rev. Moon has been "used" to create the straussian propaganda model that is at the core of the neo-straussian agenda. Moon's "revelation" is likely absolutely genuine to him...and I respect his sincerity in that, but if the Unification movement had not pre-existed in the 1970's, it would have to have been invented, according to the school of Strauss. It would not be the first time that a messiah and his movement were co-opted in this way, see Council of Nice. In Thom Hartmann's book, "What Would Jefferson Do?, Hartmann documents that the founder's intent WRT separation of church and state was even more concerned with the corruption of churches by government than it was the reverse! Ahhh...but I digress. Please don't come back at me with "synthesis" or "WP:OR on this, you know I'm well sourced on Strauss, well supported here, and citing history is not synthesis.

The changes at the Times are either (a) signs of the maturation of unification, or (b) an attempt to clean up the "image" of unification's media arms. For (a), we need evidence in terms of actions (firing Kuhner and disolving "Insight" would be a start, or at least a public rebuke of Kuhner and the disavowal of the "anonymous sourcing" policy). For (b), well the Unification church's extensive promotion in Japan of December 18, 2007 photo-ops with Neil Bush, embracing his ambassadorial support for "Abel U.N." provide at least tangential evidence that the neo-straussian influence on unificationism is continuing. Proof is in the pudding.

Thanks Ed, I enjoy our exchanges. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do digress, but it's your own talk page so that's not a problem. I just wanted to give you some background on Unification media.

Clearly we disagree on who was "using the 9/11 issue". It looks to me that conservatives were not dissing teachers but only responding to NEA politicization of the anniversary. You saw the David Limbaugh column?

Ed...please, yeah I saw Limbaugh, and

(a) the NEA website went up immediately after the attacks in 2001(!!!!) The Sorokin piece hit in Aug 2002 (in time for the elections.

(b) WRT Limbaugh...check out paragraph six, in which Limbaugh weasle-words, saying he says he was "invariably led to" the web sites, falsely implying that the sites he quoted were actually ON the NEA site, which they were not. C'mon Ed, how can you believe anyone with the last name Limbaugh? Remember "volcano chlorine"? Limbaugh writes for Insight too... riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that Rev. Moon is not an atheistic Straussian. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am HOPING he's not, and allow for the possibility...riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias on Insight report?

Having spent a lot of time looking through your edits to a stablised part of the article, I can now see you have been guilty of clear bias all along - blatantly removing anything that looks half-bad about Clinton out of the article! Even when it's all an attack on her anyway! Madness! I consider you a time waster and a POV pusher. I'm pretty anoyed to be honest - I spend a lot of my time keeping my own POV out, and being objective, and reading/replying to your posts. I'll be reverting to before you embarked on your changes. Don't POV push again - not one of your arguments stands up to logic, and the section is now an absurd misrepresentation of the Insight report!

I'm afraid the story is simply about Clinton - you can't try and hide that on the grounds that her name being used is 'propagating the smear'!! We have no proof of Insight's real intent (it was unsourced) - and we certainly can't over-write our own take on what Insight really meant - and present that as fact!! They alleged what they alleged - and it's the Insight page!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now got it back to yesterdays edit (which took me ages, given what you've been doing) - please work properly from what we had from now on. Always use Talk for solid explanations and ideally to find consensus. This Insight/Clinton/Obama issue has been a difficult topic, and was finally genuinely settling down.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you are way off base. Your charges of "POV pushing" on behalf of a political candidate are (a) blatantly false (as you would see if you took a moment to check my overall edit history), (b) a personal attack, for which I will report if you if you continue.

If you so badly need to attribute a POV to me, then examine the facts, get them right, or simply ask me rather than assuming. I am interested in Sun Myung Moon's media properties in the context of "Straussian lies" and "heavenly deceptions", please see (a) George Mason University's article on Straussian lies at "Stop the Straussians before they lie again", and how that topic is related to this topic. I am a critic of Sen. Clinton's on the basis of her failure to "speak truth to power", and on her acceptance of corporate funds for her campaign, but I see the real problem here on Misplaced Pages in the editorial focus by WP:Tendentious editors on "perpetuating the myths" that have been so successfully propagated through the moonie media machinery. I am a "Cato institute style" libertarian-(paleo)conservative and an ardent critic of post-Reagan neoconservatism, just like Francis Fukuyama is. Matt, by posting personal attacks here on my talk page, you are being a WP:DICK, please stop. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And...

The article's talk page is the place to discuss your issues with the article's content, so I will repost your comments there. WNDL42 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• UPDATE The above issue is now being discussed at the WP:WQA noticeboard here WNDL42 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Insight (magazine)

I don't think there would be enough evidence of misbehavior to disable editing by established users. It's a contentious issue, ridiculously, to a large degree. I've decided to take it off my watchlist and let the quality drop if it wants to. You can always try for a request for arbitration or focus on people violating 3RR. You could also ask an admin to step in if you know any, but people don't generally listen to admins just because they are admins.Athene cunicularia (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Consciousness causes collapse. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, your repeat performance from yesterday of making massive content deletions and pushing an unsupported POV has been discussed many times previously, for one example see here and in several other related articles. Your edits yesterday once again deleted large amounts of content and you did not (and have not) discussed or defended them, nor made any attempt to seek or refute consensus, and this reflects yet another attempt to assert ownership in the face of substantial editor opinion that you are not improving the article. Meanwhile the extent of your collaboration is fairly characterized by your edit here. If you think there is a 3rr violation, by all means please use the process and file a complaint. WNDL42 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bible code

I missed your explanation of why you thought my removals were excessive, and my comment "WNDL, I don't see why you restored the original criticism section..." was made in ignorance of that explanation. Pardon me.

Nonetheless, while I appreciate the importance of watching out for POV-pushers, I don't think that they justify keeping the old section, which was definitely full of POV, whether McKay complained about it or not. What I tried to do was cut down the arguments presented to brief summaries. Don't you think that's the most encyclopedic approach? Λυδαcιτγ 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Audacity, I'll respond briefly on your talk page, and then let's take the discussion to the article talk page, OK?

For now, let me say here that I don't agree that the section removed (which had it's basis in McKay's own original POV version) was "full of POV" except to the extent that it balanced the MBBK POV with the WRR POV. When I found the article, there was a strongly WP:UNDUE weighting in favor of the MBBK POV, reflecting and carrying forward the original MBBK bias to the extent that what I found there was a WP:COATRACK for the MBBK POV. WNDL42 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Insight, Obama, etc.

Thanks for your hard work on all this. The articles seem to be in good shape now, hard hitting but not attacking individuals unfairly. Please let me know if any more problems come up. Cheers. Redddogg (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Humor bordering on incivility?

Listen, I removed the section because it was stepping over the bounds of funny and into spitefulnesses. This "comedy relief" has stirred up a pot of bad blood that had been dieing down. I'm going to assume good faith that you aren't meaning to be hurtful in some some of your comments there. Ff I see any more that could be constrained as patronizing, harassing or in mean spirit, even if in the wording of humour, I will be reporting you for them. Consider this your warning on the matter. Jefffire (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Your deletion of an entire section of entirely relevant discussion on the talk page fails WP:AGF and several dozen other talk page guidelines and wikipedia policies.

Furthermore, In the absence of specific diffs to support the false charges against me that underlie your threat, and in the context of the behavioral patterns of the editors who find the humour somehow objectionable, I find your threatening post here to be itself a personal attack. Should you decide to follow through, I'd suggest you review this in the context of this beforehand. In the meantime, as you have made a threat, I will expect you to post diffs here immediately reflecting the specific edits that you characterized above. WNDL42 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Take at look at , an article, on an interesting logical fallacy. Now, I'm choosing to believe that you've not meant somethings to have the , and Boodles is the only one really overstepping the mark. I'm just saying now, we don't need old scabs opened up. Jefffire (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you and thanks for properly characterizing what you mean about my edits. BTW, Tu quoque cuts both ways, and I think a strong argument could be made in favor of a "legitimate" interpretation.

Now, the "old scabs" you refer to are actually quite fresh and continuing injuries, and certain editors that Boodlesthecat may have been chastising continue to be quite openly hostile to Misplaced Pages's civility guidelines, and have not improved their behavior, even while on "civility parole" since November, so any assertion that a process of "healing" is being disrupted by Boodles is, respectfully, misinformed by relevant and current events. When the most recent block expires, I will assume good faith that your vigilance will extend equally to all parties. Thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks for noticing my efforts. I just wish I had the time to offer more to the discussion. Good luck! - Tobogganoggin 02:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

GolfStyles magazine

I started an article on GolfStyles magazine, an upscale, expensive-looking full-color glossy monthly that's part of the Moon media empire, but it was immediately nominated for deletion. I suspect someone didn't read it carefully and I assumed I worked for the magazine. After that I added some more recognition, and explanation on the Talk page re notability. Could you take a look? I think people ought to know that America's most popular regional golf magazine (so I heard but have no reference) is published by Moon. I removed the deletion template (you can see it in the history), but it can still be deleted if an influential person thinks it should be. Perhaps you'd like to either add to the article or add to my rationale on the Talk page. -Exucmember (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant google search...

here

bleep bleep

hey there

All I'm trying to do on the bleepin' entry is impress upon the Science Stalinists the humble fact that if they simply make it a relatively NPOV article, then they needn't worry that this movie will somehow turn every gain in scientific methodology made since Bacon (Francis or Roger) into bacon. As it stands now, to a reader of the article, the walk away message of the article is "scientists are a bunch of humorless, opinionated, authoritarian inquisitors." But that's a by-product of what seems to be a lack of respect for the average reader, who they feel must be spoon fed the correct line. All the reader sees in reading this is the critical POV, and that, ironically, drowns out whatever message the Stalinists are trying so heavy-handedly to get across.Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. We're 100% in agreement. Did you happen to see my Google Scholar meta-analysis on "Scientific Materialism is a Religion" (which got some laughs), or the one chiding the stalinists for invoking the 14th century language of the "church of the Inquisition"? WNDL42 (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What BLP considerations? Protection isn't an endorsement of any version (see m:The Wrong Version); I have this sneaking suspicion that I protected the wrong version. If there are serious BLP concerns in the current version (e.g. the person could email OTRS about it or whatever) then I'll remove those. Keilana| 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

grazie

thanks for stepping in and protecting my lair from creepy anti-Semitic infiltration :) Sorry I've been away from Bleep-land; I took a nap and then the amount of talk there went way beyond what I could catch up on. It might be good for everyone to take at least a few hours breather, and try to not cover arguments that have been argued multiple times already. At least let's find something new to argue about! :) Speaking of controversial bla bla, are you familiar with Julian Barbour? Quite good stuff, whether you agree with his thesis or not. cheeers, Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheeler of course I know from his wonderful semi-popular explications of Gen Rev. Bekenstein I will look into; I'll start by snagging the SciAm article (about my speed!), and let you know. Barbour I only recently discovered via a retired architect friend who recommended End of time. cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I think we've gone far into the territory of Misplaced Pages:Tendentious_editing. For your consideration, I will be preparing a user conduct request for comment on your account within a few days. In short, this will state that your writing is heavily and unacceptable influenced by your PoV, namely in the scientific legitimacy of some of the movies claims, repeated scientifically void claims, unwilling to accept Misplaced Pages rules when they conflict with your views, and invalid use of WP:BLP to try to force a verifiable fact from the lead, ultimately leading to stonewalling on the talk page. This request will allow other members of the Misplaced Pages community to review the case and debate your conduct. Jefffire (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to count the number of times you've harassed and intimidated me and other users with these nuisance threats. I've reviewed WP:TE many many times -- and for you to make that accusation in the context in which you make it goes beyond the pale... WNDL42 (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that a RfC has been created about you. Please find the link Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/WNDL42. Although it has yet to be listed and counter-signed, this is likely to occur shortly. Please feel free to fill in your response to the accusations. Jefffire (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to your comment

For an AdS spacetime, for which holography is on really solid ground, the "boundary" is indeed spherical ("boundary" because it's the conformal boundary, not a true boundary). However, no one really knows how to holographically describe our universe, which appears to have a positive cosmological (non-)constant. See eg http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1129 for a recent effort at this. In general, I believe there are quite a few cases in which non-spherical holographic screens are a possibility.PhysPhD (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PhysPhD, that was probably the most helpful comment and cite I've yet had on my talk page in this context, and I am indebted. The recent Leonard Susskind paper you provide as a reference is very helpful. As my professional work has been greatly influenced by Gödel, Escher, Bach, I was particularly grateful that Susskind invokes Escher so perfectly.

As regards "spherical"...from Susskind:

"The boundary of anti de Sitter space plays a key role in the ADS/CFT correspondence, where it represents the extreme ultraviolet degrees of freedom of the boundary theory. The corresponding boundary in the FRW geometry...consists of the intersection of the hat...with the space-like future boundary of de Sitter space. From within the interior of the bubble...represents space-like infinity. It is the obvious surface for a holographic description."

You correctly point out that while the 2-sphere-->3-sphere intuitive leap might be attractive to the point of being the "obvious surface", it is nonetheless incorrect as you say to pre-suppose that this is the only possible (or even likely) construction.

My contribution to the article will (I hope) make the topic more accessible to the lay reader, and I think (a) the "spherical" construct is indispensable in this regard, and (b) the current analogy in the lead; "if you have a room, you can model all of the events within that room by creating a theory which only takes into account what happens in the walls of the room." is quite inadequate in this regard. I will propose an alternative analogy for the intro on the talk page, and look to continue the discussion there. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss and enrich. WNDL42 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Groupthink

I like the following. Perhaps you should make it into a Scratchpad, e.g. User:Wndl4/Groupthink, and we could work it up into an article. Or a Wikipolicy :-) Pete St.John (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Symptoms of groupthink

In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977).

1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Thanks Peter, I appreciate the support. I have recieved a very nice collection of e-mails in support of the Arbcom enforcement complaint where I called this out, from users either unable or otherwise unwilling to speak up at the time. Apparently this speaks to a complaint that many other good editors share but have been unable to "put the finger on" what is actually going on here at Misplaced Pages. Thanks again for commenting here! WNDL42 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think if good comes from this (fighting with disputatious editors), it will be enunciating some new or refined policy. I've been thinking about "Don't be a Submarine" (stealth wikisophistry, and a pun on "Don't be a Dick"), proposing a wikiproject Ethical Disputation (which sounds less catchy), etc. Pete St.John (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my page

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I intend to add this comment to the evidence on your RfC. Just as a general observation, if you'd be willing to listen and learn from the people around you, you might do better, on a project where collaboration is the key to progress. BTW, your closing note, "Thanks for asking though" seemed disingenuous, since as I'm sure you're aware, I didn't ask you anything. I simply stated (on the Bleep talk page) my opinion that remark was not incivil. Woonpton (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have posted the following reply on your talk page. I have also (in ) modified your post here slightly -- see below.

Response to Woonpton

Woonpton, thanks for pointing out my error, I have struck and revised accordingly. When you refuted my civility assessment here, and you said "There's nothing uncivil, as I understand civility,...", well...I assumed that since you are new here you might not have been familiar with this, specifically the second bullet, and I misinterpreted your comment as an implied question. The editor I was responding to has been quite creative in his use of weasle-words to tip-toe the borders of incivility and find new ways of calling other editors "POV pushers" (as has been well and fully documented dozens of times elesewhere), so as to avoid being blocked. Now, per WP:CIVIL, we are instructed to explain incivility even though it can be controversial to do so. I posted here, and (as you will note) avoided mentioning this editor by name, in an attempt to mitigate rather than inflame.

Might I suggest that it is needlessly incendiary to bring up the editor's name as you did above. There was/is absolutely no need to reference the identity of the editor, and I am editing your comment to that effect. WNDL42 (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stenger

Hi Wndl42 - nothing to do with the What the bleep article but could you please point me - directly - at Stenger's comments regarding What the bleep? If you get time please, I would be curios to give them a quick read. Thank you. Really2012back (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By the way, just as I was giving up that any editor on What the bleep had a sense of humour the title of your reply to me: "Hi again Really...Bleeping critics!!!" made me not only laugh but cough my cup of tea all over my keyboard. Thanks ;-)Really2012back (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV DUE

Dear Wndl42,

I thank you for your contributions concerning my proposals to get more clarity on the DUE WEIGHT issue. I've drafted new proposals, and would welcome any improvement or critique you may have! Thx,  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes Sir, thanks for your thanks, and I am indeed male, as you assumed. I greet you, --Sir Xiutwel 10:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiutwel (talk • contribs)

Thank you Wndl for your "Barnstone". I am honoured and feel humbled if I am seen as someone who can help the Misplaced Pages project in even the smallest way.(olive (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Bleep

Honestly, I doubt that SA will go to mediation, that has not been his style.Can you compromise on the lead in any way.(olive (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, I think I have offered dozens of ideas for compromise, each one rejected explicitly or stonewalled. There is no compromise on WP:NPOV, as you know, and as long as the lead flagrantly attempts to set a "tone", it will never pass WP:NPOV. Here is what I mean:

Authors set a tone in literature by conveying an emotion/feeling or emotions/feelings through words...In literature an author sets the tone through words. The possible tones are bounded only by the number of possible emotions a human being can have.

Diction and syntax often dictate what the author's (or character's) attitude toward his subject is at the time.

An example:

"Charlie surveyed the classroom of dolts, congratulating himself for snatching the higher test grade, the smug smirk on his face growing brighter and brighter as he confirmed the inferiority of his peers."

The tone here is one of arrogance, Charlie refers to his classmates as "dolts" and the quip "inferiority of his peers" shows Charlie's belief in his own prowess. The words "surveyed" and "congratulating himself" show Charlie as seeing himself better than the rest of his class. The diction, including the word "snatching", gives the reader a mental picture of someone quickly and effortlessly grabbing something, which proves once again Charlie's pride in himself. Characteristically, of course, the "smug smirk" provides a facial imagery of Charlie's pride.

I can't accept the "tone" as the current lead (and proposals) convey. Now, as two editors have clearly stated their absolute and unmoving desire for such a tone, I see no way out except for a mediation. If SA wants to kill it again (I think he'll have a hard time given all the compromises that have been offered), then so be it. WNDL42 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one of my undergrad degrees, and some of my graduate work is in Literature. I have been at this for a very long time and the tone is much improved over some other versions . I guess thats where I am on this. I could compromise, because I feel the tone is approaching neutrality in some places. Please note I do offer another version, somewhat more neutral. If you want to go for mediation go for it, but a mediation does not mean that anyone will agree with the comments from the mediator(olive (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC))