Misplaced Pages

Talk:Michael Dowd

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hrafn (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 5 September 2008 (→A brief history of this article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:09, 5 September 2008 by Hrafn (talk | contribs) (→A brief history of this article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconBiography Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Hrafn, explain your revert.

Hrafn, what is your reason for reverting my edit?

For my reference: help:Reverting

LionKimbro (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary for the reversion, your edit was "unsourced", in that it was not cited per WP:CITE. This violates WP:V, and makes it impossible to tell if added material is WP:OR or not. Reversion of such unsourced additions is therefore fairly standard practice on wikipedia. HrafnStalk 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pentecostal-style vs Pentecostal

I suggest changing the word "Pentecostal" to "Pentecostal-style" for accuracy. My worldview would be considered heretical by most Pentecostals. The citation in the Oregonian is nearly a direct quote from my publicist's press release - written, I suspect, more to get the media's attention than to be wikipedia accurate. My style is certainly that of a Pentecostal preacher. But the vast majority of Pentecostals in America and throughout the world today, almost all of whom are conservative evangelicals, would not even recognize my theology as biblically Christian, much less Pentecostal.MBDowd (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that we have a source for "Pentecostal" and not one for "Pentecostal-style" (and the standard for inclusion is "verifiability not truth"). If you can provide a source (I suspect that even a self-published one would be acceptable for such a point, as long as it is verifiably yours -- e.g. published on your website) for "Pentecostal-style"? HrafnStalk 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it further, replacing "Pentecostal" with "Pentecostal-style" will be somewhat of a stopgap. Ideally, the article should describe and contrast your theological position (both in terms of general theology & in terms of how your theology engages evolution -- e.g. how it compares with the 'Evolutionary Creation' delineated by Denis Lamoureux) and describe rather than simply label your "style" of evangelism (particularly for the benefit of readers who've never directly encountered Pentecostalism). This is, I think the sort of information that would be of most interest to readers who come across your article while researching how Christianity & Evolutionary Biology engage and reconcile with each other. However all this would require reliable sources, but it gives usa something to keep our eye out for. HrafnStalk 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Hrafn. I'll work on this when I've got some time and post here for your comments/suggestions. 71.191.4.79 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC) MBDowd (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In case some of it is useful, I just cut and pasted a bunch of biographical material from my 2008 Viking book on my talk page. MBDowd (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a short summary of it. Self-description for influences should be fine (and its clearly relevant) -- but it probably pushes the article to the maximum balance of primary-sourced material that would be desirable. I think the 'eclectic influences' is sufficient justification for not being too specific as to your denominational affiliation, so have also changed that. HrafnStalk 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor hrafn and the campaign to efface pages on sprituality and New Thought

I just found this page by taking a tour of pages that editor hrafn has recently started editing. Hrafn appears to be a single-purpose editor who removes material from pages that present biographies of, and books by, Christians and New Thought writers. Examples of inexperienced editors seeking help from a more exerienced editor when entire pages were found to be deleted (without prior discussion) or redirected (with loss of data) or merged (with loss of data) by hrafn are here, here, here, here, and here. See also the edit history of Wallace Wattles and Charles F. Haanel and their related discussion pages. Hrafn claims to merely be "enforcing verifiability" of biography pages, but the only pages he targets are those related to Christianity and New Thought. He summarily deletes material without discussion. He cuts biography lengths by 50% to 75% and then nominates the articles for deletion based on the "non-notability" of the bio subject. He has on one occasion deleted an entire page without discussion. It is very likely that, as evidence of his campaign of effacement and deletion is accumulated and follows him, he will either stop engaging in this practice or be proposed for blockage from editing spirituality and/or religion articles. If you know of other instances of his deletions and effacements, please list them. Thank you for your attention. catherine yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Catherine for that vituperative diatribe. You don't like WP:V and absolutely hate, with a white-hot flame, anybody who deletes unverifiable material -- I get that. What your precipitous rush to prejudgement has missed is that I've just been adding (verifiable) information to this article, in cooperation with the article-topic. So kindly take your bile and your quixotic crusade against basic wikipedia policy elsewhere. HrafnStalk 19:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversions that delete sourced material; reversions citing Wiki policy incorrectly

Hrafn, i think you are confused. You have twice today delete/reverted the following paragraph from this page:

Dowd and his wife Connie Barlow, a science writer, travel the country teaching their "Gospel of Evolution." <ref name=statenisland> {{cite news |title=The Gospel of Evolution| author = Leslie Palma-Simoncek |date = 2208-08-10| url= http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1126| accessdate= 2008-09-04 |publisher = Staten Island Advance}}</ref> They present their case for "the marriage of religion and science" at events sponsred by a diverse group of denominations, including ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] venues. <ref></ref>

The first time you deleted it, you climed that it was

(Rvt: WP:POINT WP:EDITWARring by an editor who wants ALL unverifiable information to be left in articles in GROSS VIOLATION of WP:V) (undo)

It was not edit-warring. I just found some interesting material, wrote it up and and sourced it. You called it a "GROSS VIOLATION of WP:V" -- that is "verifiability," but the material was actually sourced.

I reinstated it.

Within minutes you had deleted it again, this time citing at your rational;

(Rvt: per WP:SELFPUB & WP:LAYOUT) (undo)

But one of the quotes was from the Staten Island Advance (not self-published by Michael Dowd, obviously), and the other was merely a list of past itinerary speaking engagements, used to support the fact that he appears before a wide variety of religious and secular venues. This was self-published, indeed, but it also fully meets the uaability guidelines for self-published references, which are: 

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves
Policy shortcuts:
WP:SELFQUEST
WP:SELFPUB
Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:
   1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
   2. it is not contentious;
   3. it is not unduly self-serving;
   4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
   5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
   7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The Past Itineraries list was used to support only the wide variety of venues the subject addresses. It is relevant to notability, it is not contentious, it is not unduly self-serving, it does not involve claims about thrd parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it, and the article itself is not based pimarily on such sources. In other words, the Past Itineraries list satisfies every one of the 7 Misplaced Pages tests for suitability of inclusion.

I question why you do not discuss these matters here before making deletions -- and why you cannot slow down a bit and let us talk over the issues. I believe that you are misinterpreting key Misplaced Pages policy matters here. I will not be re-inserting the material today -- i have other work to do, and would certainly not wish to get into an edit-war with you -- but i will return later and see if we cannot seek mediation in some manner. This BLP is important enough to warrant some work, and i am willing to work on it. cat yronwqode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A brief history of this article

  1. This article was started as a WP:AUTOBIO by its topic, User:MBDowd, who has also edited it a number of times since.
  2. As of the date I first edited it, it was wholly unsourced.
  3. I therefore replaced the unsourced & potentially WP:COI material with a sourced stub.
  4. Thereafter, in consultation with Dowd, I have expanded the material based on his published self-description of his religious influences in TGFE. As of then it was (at 2,149 bytes) only slightly smaller than the largest unsourced original (2,301 bytes).
  5. At this stage, Catherine inserted mainly-unsourced material with an edit summary of "reinstating another valuable portion of text that was summarily deleted by hrafn as part of his campaign to efface spirituality and New Thought pages". I would note that:
    1. The edit summary is pure WP:BAITing.
    2. The majority of the material was unsourced, and therefore in violation of WP:V.
    3. That this material was purporting to be "reinstating" old (and thus potentially WP:AUTOBIO/WP:COI) material, and was thus a controversial edit which should have been discussed on talk first.
      • Further, reverting such controversial edits until they have first been discussed on talk is not inappropriate, per WP:BRD.
  6. Catherine then proceeded to reinsert the minority of this material that was sourced to self-published sources.
  7. Per WP:SELFPUB, I reverted this as well. Specifically "7. the article is not based primarily on such sources." As of this edit, the article was approximately 1/3 third-party-sourced, 1/3 published primary-sourced & 1/3 self-published primary-sourced -- clearly unbalanced. Additionally, the major portion of the addition was simply a listing of denominations that Dowd had spoken to, cribbed from (and thus bordering on WP:SYNTH of) his 'Past Itinerary' -- hardly high-impact material.
  8. Throughout these shenanigans, both Catherine and Madman2001 have repeatedly attempted to retitle the Reference for 'Dowd, Michael (2008)' to "Further readings" -- in spite of the fact that this is a formal reference for the article (cited as "Dowd(2008) pp 1-6") -- in violation of WP:LAYOUT guidelines.

I will close by pointing out that, far from bearing the topic an ideological animus, I am in complete agreement with Dowd's central thesis -- that Christianity and Evolution are compatible with each other. I would quite happily recommend his book to any Evangelical wrestling with the compatibility of the two, as I would recommend Kenneth R. Miller's Finding Darwin's God to a Catholic. HrafnStalk 06:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories: