Kelapstick (talk | contribs) →User page: new section |
|||
Line 265: | Line 265: | ||
:To repeat myself, "Why bring it up in a manner that ignores the previous discussion?" "Why do you repeatedly focus on criticisms after all the discussion about them?" "Why...without acknowledging the previous discussions?" |
:To repeat myself, "Why bring it up in a manner that ignores the previous discussion?" "Why do you repeatedly focus on criticisms after all the discussion about them?" "Why...without acknowledging the previous discussions?" |
||
:You continue to want to assume biases in others with your labels of "the skeptic editors" and then try to get article changes made based upon those assumptions. Again, you're the one with the bias. Assumptions that others have biases is disruptive. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
:You continue to want to assume biases in others with your labels of "the skeptic editors" and then try to get article changes made based upon those assumptions. Again, you're the one with the bias. Assumptions that others have biases is disruptive. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Primarily; to repeat my answer above, because ''it was not the same discussion'' so therefore the foundation of your question doesn't make much sense to me. It may have been a discussion about the same source, but the context, application, argument and usage entirely different and entirely unrelated. Also the discussion had nothing to do with removing Clinton from the article. I'm sorry you feel this is disruptive, but I guess I could make the same accusation towards you if I took your position (which I don't). |
|||
::Secondly; Even if it was the same discussion, ''it was not a closed discussion'' and all arguments that you and the other suspicious editors were giving me were not even in the context of what I was suggesting. I'm not sure why you are putting so much weight into those rebuttals, especially because they were, to me, straw man arguments that did not even address my inquiry. Additionally, and I think this is something that would be great if you are aware of - when there are 3 editors who are trying to slam me left and right, then give me some exaggerated policy application that does not even address my actual argument but the one they are imagining in their minds I am making - I'm not sure why I need to readdress those types of discussions in the first place. |
|||
::Thirdly: Are you actually suggesting that those editors whom are avowed skeptics or whom have very strong suspicions about Dr Chopra are somehow NOT biased towards the subject matter? That seems like a stretch of the imagination. Maybe it's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about - but talking about it and addressing it is not disruptive. I can see where my bias comes into the picture - why can't you? [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81#top|talk]]) 17:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== What does it mean to you to be "without bias"? == |
== What does it mean to you to be "without bias"? == |
Revision as of 17:37, 7 June 2014
Updated COI
I was unable to reveal this earlier for logistical reasons but now I am able to inform the Wikipedia community of the context of my relationship with Dr Chopra and my intentions for participating here on Wikipedia with this material.
I lead a research and archiving team and we have been given a grant from the Chopra Foundation to build the 'integrative studies historical archive'. The archive contains a world collection of cultural and scientific knowledge, research and discussion around integrative medicine and consciousness, including notable subjects, events and biographies.
Our responsibilities will be representing this archived knowledge on Wikipedia in addition to assisting media, universities, journalists, researchers or libraries.
I speak personally with Dr. Chopra daily around the creation of the archive as well as consulting him directly regarding Wikipedia's principles, which I can say he is growing quite fond of and he is genuinely taking an interest in this encyclopedia. I've informed him that the ethics of archiving inform us to work within Wikipedia policies and support them and he agrees.
This is NOT the official announcement for the archive - just a courtesy heads up to the community here so my focus is more properly understood. I'm not a PR or a press agent and I feel awkward when I am referred to that way :/ SAS81 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- This gives you a good opportunity to put Chopra's article aside and work on articles far less controversial. Otherwise, I'm afraid that you're going to find yourself blocked/banned before you have a chance to learn how to work within the policies/guidelines you are up against. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I’m sorry if this was not communicated clearer. I am here directly representing Dr. Chopra and both his and the archives concerns regarding what we believe to be a genuinely misleading and biased article on Dr. Chopra. i.e. it’s my job to be here and my presence here is in accordance with BLP
- I’m all for engaging with other articles, but right now I do not have the time. As time goes on, I and others here will. Part of the archives responsibility will be helping to improve the encyclopedia on many articles. I would not assume that me or any of us are ignorant about Wikipedia or have never contributed previously to Wikipedia outside our current job descriptions. Understanding and complying with the guidelines rules and policies of Wikipedia is a keen focus of our best practices.
- If you believe somehow that I am extending the boundaries of what my participation should be in relationship to my COI, I request you specifically point out what that boundary is. As far as I can tell I am simply following Wikipedia’s rules to the letter.
- I am also posting a copy of the Discretionary Sanctions notice on my own talk page to show that I am aware of these guidelines and have the intention to honor them.
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
SAS81 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. While what you've been doing is well within COI policy, and your patience and temperament have been excellent despite the treatment you've received, you are wearing out the patience of many editors that are very experienced in editing articles that fall under BLP, FRINGE, and MEDRS.
- What I see you doing is ignoring a great deal of the excellent advice you've received, and instead looking for ways around the objections to your concerns about the article. I don't see this ending well for you as an editor here, and it could very well result in a Streisand effect for your employer. Granted, there may be unrealistic expectations on your work here from your employer, putting you in a no-win position. I hope that's not the case. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- thanks for looking out. what advice have I been given that i have ignored? Please inform me. As far as I can tell I have obliged every request, and with the exception of sources (i have much more but still finding the best way to format here for all of you) I am unclear exactly what you are referring to. The steps I am taken are the exact steps that are laid out in BLP for a representative to follow. Tell me, what would you recommend I do specifically? SAS81 (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources are not potential for anything unless they are specific to content. An academic source or any other source is not automatically reliable unless it directly references content editors wish to add to an article. Further our policies on sources do not indicate an academic source is reliable to the the exclusion of all others. I'd suggest again that editors zero in on content and deal with the specifics of that content line by line, and the sources that support that content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC))
- @Ronz (talk) is this what you mean?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Update_on_TRPoD.27s_breakdown
I've been providing numerous sources this whole time, do you think they are getting lost in the shuffle? your advice appreciated! SAS81 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- To Clarify: Where do you see that I am suggesting we don't use sources? I am per our RS policy advising that sources be specific to content, that a source is judged reliable per the content it is meant to reference and cannot be judged a reliable source unless we know what that content is. No source is reliable in isolation of referenced content. A source may be reliable for some content but not other content.
- "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- To Clarify: Where do you see that I am suggesting we don't use sources? I am per our RS policy advising that sources be specific to content, that a source is judged reliable per the content it is meant to reference and cannot be judged a reliable source unless we know what that content is. No source is reliable in isolation of referenced content. A source may be reliable for some content but not other content.
Ronz. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear. You suggested SAS find potential sources. I'm suggesting sources have no potential unless we know specifically what content they reference. Given that, what we need is to understand what content concerns there are first, then we can deal with sources. Anyway I'll leave this point for now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC))
Help
If I can help you SAS, let me know. I am saddened by what is going on here. I should add that doesn't involve the specifics on the discussion on the Chopra article talk page. I just don't want to sink in that quagmire (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
- Ha! Caveat was very important :) Thank you Olive - you are someone I feel comfortable going to for advice. SAS81 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Chopra
Of course we are not getting anywhere- because you refuse to accept that WP:NPOV means the absolute starting ground for any discussion is the mainstream academic view of the topic which is that he is out in the ocean with one paddle. And your refusal to come to that starting point is a evidence of that issue and it is clearly part of the behaviors outlined by the Arb Com Pseudoscience ruling that are subject to topic bans and blocks directly precisely because they lead to discussions on fringe topics leading no where. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom That's quite a claim your making about my behaviors and intentions. Do you have any clear and direct evidence you could provide? SAS81 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the entire talk page where you are attempting to claim we need to determine what NPOV is or somehow negotiate about it.
- We do clearly know what it means and there is no negotiating exceptions.
- Your endless insistences that we place endocrinologist in the lead
- this despite having been told again and again that the lead is to cover what he is notable for and being an endocrinologist is not one of the things he is notable for.
- Yes, the entire talk page where you are attempting to claim we need to determine what NPOV is or somehow negotiate about it.
- those are just the disruptive walls of repeated text that i have been following and which make up only about a third of gazillions of pixels that have been added to the talk page since you showed up just a few weeks ago. I havent been following the rest of the tl;dr -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm uncompromising when it comes to neutral framing. That's the only thing I see evidence of in TALK pages. Casting aspersions is not a productive way to engage with me - it just makes me feel harassed regardless of what your intentions are. SAS81 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- But, Rather than continuing down the rabbit hole of specifics in the lead, I have offered a different perspective for approaching the articles at Talk:Deepak_Chopra#Moving_forward. It is based upon WP:LEAD so that you have a framework. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll check it out. SAS81 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- re: "I'm uncompromising when it comes to neutral framing. " It appears to me that you are stuck on a definition of "neutral framing" which is "Chopra ends up being presented in a neutral light" - however, see particularly WP:BALASPS / WP:VALID subsections of WP:UNDUE. Within Wikipedia "neutral framing" means that our article frames the subject "as the reliable mainstream academics frame and view the subject. " The sooner you come to that and make your proposals from that assumption the sooner you might have some positive effect.
- but as someone who has such a conflict of interest in maintaining a positive relationship with Chopra to continue your work it is highly unlikely that you will be able to effectively take and maintain such a view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- SAS, if I might offer some small pieces of advice? WP editors are human beings, and their editing behavior will be tinted by their beliefs. If they have formed a negative view of a subject it is still an honestly held opinion, and just as valuable as a positive one you may have yourself. You will never arrive at a truly universal definition of neutrality except by reference to sources. Start from that understanding. But also, (and please don't underestimate this), editors are unpaid volunteers. When you produce something for them to read, you are demanding that they surrender a portion of their unpaid time to you. You owe it to them (and ultimately to your project) to edit your work harshly before you send it. Take out any words that are not earning their keep and all repetition. You might be surprised how much goodwill you earn just by doing this. Say hello on my talk page if you want to discuss further. I am even happy to help you copyedit your posts. Rumiton (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Your conflict of interest and its impact on your editing
Please join the discussion about your conflict of interest at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Question
Hello, would you please explain why you alerted me as one of the "Deepak Chopra editors" here? vzaak 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I probably got it from archives of editors who have been involved editing Dr. Chopra's article so you must have made a contribution there at some junction or another. Apologies, vzaak if you're not that involved. SAS81 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have never contributed to the Chopra article. Would you please explain why you listed my name? vzaak 21:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
you contributed here SAS81 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Responding to the COI noticeboard post on Chopra qualifies as being a Deepak Chopra editor? That doesn't make sense to me (the purpose of a noticeboard is to obtain input from those who aren't editors of an article in question), but even granting this criteria, there are others who commented on the noticeboard who were not mentioned by you here. Would you please explain why I was singled out? Also, since you have brought up the old COI noticeboard post from November, are you connected to any of the names involved with that? vzaak 22:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- It qualifies you as being involved with the subject matter and my intention was as a courtesy. No one was singled out I just notified all editors I could find that have been involved. I have no idea if you participated directly in his article, I just assumed you did. If your curious about my COI, please consult the COI noticeboard on my participation here. SAS81 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- You say that I was not singled out, but Matthewrbowker, Capitalismojo, LuckyLouie, AndyTheGrump, Vivekachudamani, Someguy1221, Justlettersandnumbers, bobrayner, Johnuniq, and Blackguard (and maybe others I missed) all commented at the COI noticeboard, and none of those were mentioned in your initial post. There must be a reason you mentioned me, apart from my comment on the COI noticeboard. Would you please disclose what it is? vzaak 01:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't help you anymore than I already have. I'm sorry you feel singled out, that was not my intention. My intention was to notify editors involved and I'm sorry I missed those names you mentioned, it was probably an error. This was weeks ago and I was in the weeds. If you're not involved in the article just disregard. SAS81 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am not offended that you pinged me, but in a small way it has contributed to the off-site conspiricizing about Wikipedia, which has the secondary effect of inflaming some editors to the point of being disruptive.
- I didn't mention the list of COI participants because I thought you should have notified them. Rather it was to illustrate the point that your explanation about the COI noticeboard didn't make sense. vzaak 01:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The off-site conspiracies are not coming from me. Deepak Chopra himself has endorsed some of the conspiricizing. Please keep me out of it. Your explanation for pinging me does not make sense, and I don't know why you would give me the runaround. vzaak 17:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
STOP! It's hardly a runaround and this paranoia is getting a little over the top. I'm a COI and my job was to notify all previous Chopra COI participants as well as editors on his page. You were one of 27 names mentioned and I made a copy and paste error and did not include a few names by accident. Hardly a conspiracy against you - and I can assure you Dr. Chopra has never mentioned your name once and does not even know you exist, nor would I if you did not continually insert your battleground perspective. You're the one who has singled yourself out. please stop harassing me about this. SAS81 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I must say, like Vzaak I am curious about the list of mentioned editors. A collection harvested from editors recently involved with editing Chopra (either the article, or at noticeboards) would - for instance - have included Vivekachudamani who was prominently engaged, yet it didn't. I suppose this will remain a mystery! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep wondering all you want - just please stop bothering me about this on my talk page. SAS81 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Dialogue
I have responded on my own talk page if you wish to continue a dialogue. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
AN notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Best advice I've been given
The Special Barnstar | ||
For your tireless attempts to work within the boundaries set by Wikipedia, with grace, andcivility despite the frustration and difficulties you've encountered. Just keep showing up. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
Thank you :) SAS81 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
DS notification
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Template:Z33 Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date."
SAS81, these notices are given to editors who work in this topical area, regardless of their point of view. Discretionary sanctions also exist in other subjects where debate can get heated like Eastern Europe and the Israel/Palestine conflict. I just wanted to put this notice into context. Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Liz! I guess the editor who posted it did not realize that I already posted this notice on my own talk page. I'm aware of these sanctions and plan on sticking to the guidelines to the letter and spirit. SAS81 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- to stick to them in letter and spirit you will need to stop engaging in WP:TE about the subject- such as repeatedly suggesting words and phrasing so completely at odds with the very simple to follow WP:PEACOCK that you are either making no attempt to read and follow the guidelines provided to you (again and again and again) or so completely lacking in WP:COMPETENCE as to make effort of communicating with you futile. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Liz! I guess the editor who posted it did not realize that I already posted this notice on my own talk page. I'm aware of these sanctions and plan on sticking to the guidelines to the letter and spirit. SAS81 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess you're not following the discussion, the term you're complaining about 'cheerleader' was originally suggested by JPS as an alternative to the pejorative 'New Age Guru' that the article is leading with but not supported by the body of the article. Making suggestions, especially when advised by another editor to offer 'proposals' in one section, while trying to focus on single issues per everyone else's suggestion is simply not WP:TE and TE does not reflect my intentions nor behaviors. SAS81 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- no, i am not talking about the term "cheerleader" (thats a different issue). i am talking about the fact that in your proposed two paragraphs you gilded Chopra with " prominent"x2 "notable " and " leader" x2. We are talking basic identification of PR fluff here that you apparently still are completely oblivious to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yet you're absolutely fine with calling him a 'New Age Guru'. You're fine with omitting facts that contradict your suspicions of him. It's just a 'fact' that Dr. Chopra is considered a thought leader and there are pristine sources which show that. That's how many notable people, including Bill Clinton, perceive him. You're trying to omit that. Do you actually believe it's PR fluff to simply say that Dr Chopra is notable? It's a fact that he is notable. And my proposal was to show my thinking on the issue and to open up dialogue. You're definition of neutrality means the article takes a critical voice. TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doomare you taking responsibility for the current state of the article? SAS81 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe we've already told you more than once that Bill Clinton is not an expert on medicine. Worse, politicians have a nasty habit of tailoring their messages to suit the audience. You don't (or can't) seem to comprehend this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- In fact the Clintons don't seem to have the best record in deciding on health issues. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe we've already told you more than once that Bill Clinton is not an expert on medicine. Worse, politicians have a nasty habit of tailoring their messages to suit the audience. You don't (or can't) seem to comprehend this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, correct Barney the barney barney, you've told me that more than once. The problem is that it's a strawman, I was never arguing that Clinton is a source to verify Dr Chopra's medical credentials so repeating this argument again just tells me you're not making an effort to listen. Dr. Chopra has the AMA and his work with Chopra Center, UCSD support his medical credentials. Clinton's quote regarding Dr Chopra was to show that he is notable for being, what Clinton refers to as a 'pioneer'. Now you can call him pioneer, thought leader, cheerleader, it doesn't matter, what matters is that he is notable for playing that role and he has been recognized by world leaders as such. If he was a new age guru, I would expect him to be referred to as a new age guru by world leaders. the only sources that call him a new age guru are critics.
@Alexbrn - It doesn't matter what OR you do on the Clintons, the fact is when a sitting US president makes a statement to a foreign dignitary, that statement is based on the credibility of the US and surely you've heard of this. So to say that a US president is not qualified to make statements that he is not expert in is stretching the limits of common sense. US presidents have to make all sorts of statements beyond their expertise, that is why they have presidential commissions which are comprised of the leading academic experts in those fields to inform them. SAS81 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, SAS81 (talk · contribs) my opinion was that you were not worth talking to, and I think you've just proven why. Don't shit me - Mr Clinton is not a medical expert. His opinion on medicine is entirely irrelevant. If there are *any* medical articles in which the opinion of any politician is prominently cited, I'll personally remove it. This isn't happening try moving on from this transparently pathetic argument. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Barney. I don't see here that SAS is suggesting Clinton is a medical expert. He suggests he is notable for another statement altogether. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC))
- Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) - given your previous statements inclined to be anti-Wikipedia and anti-WP:FRINGE, I cannot say that I am surprised. SAS81 (talk · contribs) wants to include, promintently in the lead, a statement from Mr William Clinton, a retired politician, praising Dr Chopra as a "pioneer of medicine". SAS81 (talk · contribs) apparently accepts that Mr Clinton is not an expert on medicine, but that describing someone as a "pioneer of medicine" isn't related to medicine. Do you see the slight contradiction here? Instead, Mr Clinton is touted as an expert on what constitutes a "pioneer", even though everyone else is not really sure what "pioneer" means beyond PR-bullshit. Furthermore, SAS81 (talk · contribs) wants this non-medical related medical statement to be prominently cited in the article, as apparently a summary of scholarly opinions on Dr Chropa's work. Do you know what the scholarly opinions of alternative medicine and Dr Chopra are? Do you think this quote accurately reflects them? Meanwhile, despite repeatedly told to stop flogging this dead horse, even though it's now maggot infested, giving off foul gases, and liable to explode, we go back to this inane statement. This is very good WP:ROPE. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Barney. I don't see here that SAS is suggesting Clinton is a medical expert. He suggests he is notable for another statement altogether. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC))
- Gosh Barney, anti Wikipedia and anti Fringe. I guess a good laugh is always in order.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC))
- Littleolive oil, you're in good company...Barney Barney called me anti-Wikipedia and anti-WP:FRINGE because I defended an editor I thought was being bullied. It's his "go-to" insult to folks when he is on the other side of a dispute. Meaningless. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right, Liz (talk · contribs). In this bizarre world of yours, implementing Wikipedia policies is conflated with "bullying" editors (and of course bullies should be banned!)- because we're now at the point where the anti-Wikipedia editors don't have any arguments except whining how butthurt they're feeling because Wikipedia isn't more sympathetic to pseudo-scholarship, e.g. such as alternative "medicine". Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've never argued about or over content, Barney. I've just asked that editors treated each other with civility and edit in line with WP:NPA and abide by WP:BLP guidelines. Yes, this bizarre world of mine, where editors try to follow the WP:FIVEPILLARS and don't attack each other. You should try it out. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Be nice to each other isn't a suicide pact. Yes, you're right Liz (talk · contribs), you don't want to discuss content, which leaves me wondering just what you are doing here? Instead you talk incessantly about being nice to people, specifically "that's OK, we won't revert your edits that are clearly against policy, just in case you might feel a little butthurt. This is based on your complete misinterpretation of what WP:BLP is and complete ignorance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:COI. All it does is create a little WP:DRAMA for no reason. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've never argued about or over content, Barney. I've just asked that editors treated each other with civility and edit in line with WP:NPA and abide by WP:BLP guidelines. Yes, this bizarre world of mine, where editors try to follow the WP:FIVEPILLARS and don't attack each other. You should try it out. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right, Liz (talk · contribs). In this bizarre world of yours, implementing Wikipedia policies is conflated with "bullying" editors (and of course bullies should be banned!)- because we're now at the point where the anti-Wikipedia editors don't have any arguments except whining how butthurt they're feeling because Wikipedia isn't more sympathetic to pseudo-scholarship, e.g. such as alternative "medicine". Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Littleolive oil, you're in good company...Barney Barney called me anti-Wikipedia and anti-WP:FRINGE because I defended an editor I thought was being bullied. It's his "go-to" insult to folks when he is on the other side of a dispute. Meaningless. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Barney you're speaking very rudely here and i don't appreciate my talk page being used to attack two editors whom have been kind, and rational enough to help out. Secondly, I'm not arguing clinton's statement go in the lead. I did offer it as a suggestion more than a month back, but that's yesterday's news. While your on my talk page being rude, other neutral WP editors are already cleaning up the article and have removed the offensive weasel language you apparently support. Biographical facts are not covered by Fringe, they are covered by BLP and I'm glad we have some editors here who know the difference. If someone is sore when they sit down, it's probably going to be you as the article now is correcting itself in a way I find satisfactory. SAS81 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Liz, you're a class act, not least of which for being polite enough not to point out that you've got more edits and WP experience under your belt than 99% of the various folks accusing you of doing nothing on WP but drama. I respect your restraint, I wish I were as patient a person. The Cap'n (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's kind of you, The Cap'n. And I'm sorry this argument broke out on your talk page, SAS81. You have the right to tell any of us that we are not welcome to post here, any time you want.
- My philosophy is that it costs nothing to be polite, even when you disagree with someone. The words we choose show our character, flaws and all. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Liz, you're a class act, not least of which for being polite enough not to point out that you've got more edits and WP experience under your belt than 99% of the various folks accusing you of doing nothing on WP but drama. I respect your restraint, I wish I were as patient a person. The Cap'n (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Liz you're more than welcome here! I was referring to the very rude individual who was so abusive to you and Olive. You, the Capn, Atama, Slim Virgin and Olive are gems and if it was not for all of you, I would have quit by now :). I really appreciate your advice and I am looking into it more. IN the meantime, the article is improving and it's great to see Wikipedia work when it does. You all are good people! SAS81 (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved barnstar
Hi SAS81, I moved your ANI board post to the users talk page. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm wondering if this was put on my talk page by accident? Not sure what you're referencing exactly. Which ANI? What barnstar? SAS81 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Precious
Thank you
For your calm and even manner even when under fire. This is Gerda Arendt's award which she suggested we pass on when we find someone who deserves it as you do
(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC))
Thank you Olive :) I'll pass it on too, keep the cycle going. SAS81 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Image question
Hi SAS, do you think Chopra would consider releasing this image of himself (or some other) as a child? It would be nice to add it to the early life section.
Because we're a "free" encyclopaedia, almost all our images have to be released, rather than used with permission. One commonly used licence is a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. I'll explain in more detail if and when you need it, but in brief Chopra would retain the copyright, but anyone could use the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. That would mean that any news organization could use it without payment of a fee and without even asking him. So he might not want to do that, but I thought it worth checking with you anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, more pictures of Chopra (and of his centers) would be useful decoration for the article! In particular, could a recent picture of DC be made available? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes would love to oblige. We have not yet begun to archive images yet as we are just getting out the gate, but I will make this a priority and see what i can get you all in the next couple of days. Dr Chopra has numerous organizations so it may take a bit, but the child picture I can ask him directly. SAS81 (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I should put them so I will place them here for now. I was able to get these quick because they were personal. Chopra center photos and Chopra foundation photos next week, Thanks SlimVirgin SAS81 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- These are great images, SAS, and thank you for being so fast about it. I've added the 2013 one and the baby one to the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Confused about your relationship to Chopra
Chopra writes, "A group of researchers and archivists approached me awhile back to explain how Wikipedia works and offered to mediate... This team of researchers and historians has now formed the 'Integrative Studies Historical Archive and Repository.'"
Is this referring to you and your team? Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes the full team specifically. SAS81 (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Something doesn't add up. You approached him to explain to him how Wikipedia worked, but on April 10, 2014, you wrote that "Wikipedia is very complex to new comers... please don’t bite the newbies." Were you referring to yourself? If you were, how is it possible that you "explain[ed] how Wikipedia works?" Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- It could mean all sorts of things I guess. It could mean a 'newbie' account, or even new to "COI", or just flat out new to Wikipedia. Ish. I mean most people have a little Wikipedia experience, right? So what does it mean 'experience?' Hmmmmm. It could also mean that someone else on the team had a conversation with Dr Chopra that he is referring to, someone other than me. Maybe more than one too, other than me. Or it could mean that research had to be done to explain and that's all that means. Then there are the things that it could mean that you or I can't even think of. Oh the choices you have.
- It meant that I'm a little new to this, be nice, and don't bite me. ps - you're biting me. SAS81 (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Your question at Talk:Deepak Chopra
To answer your question, since you decided to ask on the article talk page as well [1]:
- This is disruptive. I'd hoped the discussions here on your talk page back in April would have prevented anything like it.
- If you could stick to non-controversial proposals as defined by WP:COI, or just follow WP:COI much more closely, or follow the advice you've been given here, the situation would be entirely different. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Ronz - thanks for addressing this. I don't see how this is disruptive so maybe you can explain to me how this is so? Biographical facts are essential in a BLP. Not everyone shares your particular policy arguments. SlimVirgin, an incredibly experienced editor, actually made most of the changes to the problems I was talking about. If I was so disruptive - why do neutral editors make the same or similar positions as I do? I'm here to be apart of the Wikipedia community - I just can't edit an actual article about this subject, but I am allowed to address arguments in talk and raise issues to other editors. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- At some points the need for repetition (both from and to you) is a problem.
- From your editing to date, I think you are here as a WP:SPA with a WP:COI intent only on promoting Chopra and whatever puts him in the best possible light.
- You don't appear interested in cooperating with me here and now, or you wouldn't be grasping at rationalizations but rather be asking for details. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- In case you haven't noticed, before I saw you had asked at the article talk page, I had answered on my talk here, just focusing on the lack of general consensus for what should be done in such situations. Here, I've tried once again to give you suggestions, which you've chosen so far to ignore.
- If you'd like to instead focus on exactly what you did wrong with the comment that I identified in the diff, we can do that too. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Ronz - thanks for addressing this. I don't see how this is disruptive so maybe you can explain to me how this is so? Biographical facts are essential in a BLP. Not everyone shares your particular policy arguments. SlimVirgin, an incredibly experienced editor, actually made most of the changes to the problems I was talking about. If I was so disruptive - why do neutral editors make the same or similar positions as I do? I'm here to be apart of the Wikipedia community - I just can't edit an actual article about this subject, but I am allowed to address arguments in talk and raise issues to other editors. SAS81 (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Ronz I understand you have an opinion about me - and I can see how your opinion about me is coloring your impressions of what I am doing, all I can tell you is what you're assuming about me does not reflect my intentions here on the encyclopedia. I don't think it's fair to say I ignore what you tell me, it may be that I consider it and don't agree it's appropriate in the same way you do.
If you want to focus on the diff, okay great let's have the policy discussion here. What's out of line with my point? A siting US president honors a living person in a speech to a foreign dignitary - my argument is that is as about as notable of a reception as they come. It makes sense to put that in the living person's biography. I'm not sure how me pointing this out is disruptive. Explain. SAS81 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your biases are a given. Don't assume biases of anyone else please. I'm simply looking at your behavior.
- Why bring up Clinton after it was already discussed? Why bring it up in a manner that ignores the previous discussion? Why do you repeatedly focus on criticisms after all the discussion about them? Why do you repeat questions on the "guru" label that have already been addressed, again without acknowledging the previous discussions? Why end with, "Now we have created a drama that needs to be explained. Good luck with that one."? --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Clinton was brought up again because Clinton was taken OUT of the article, so it's a different discussion than before, when it was being discussed for prominence in the lead sentence. Clinton was always in the article. Before, it was at the very bottom of the article, then SlimVirgin moved it to receptions. Then someone just took it out.
- In terms of Guru - there is no consensus on the article for using it, and a number of editors, many of them neutral also had a problem with it. On top of that, very vocal skeptics on the page were saying it's the most perfect word used to describe him (obviously it's a term that is discrediting) so I am citing BLP on that and still will. But did you notice I also thanked you for taking it out of WP's voice?
- I said 'good luck with that one' because the weight the skeptic editors are insisting keeping 'guru' in WP's voice creates unnecessary 'drama' in the article that the article has to explain. Although i accepted the compromise, it still makes for an awkward article. If he is described as a new age guru - why? What else is he described as? Why only give one description and not more? Those are all natural questions a discerning reader will have and if the article does not answer them, it just looks like a sloppy article. SlimVirgin herself said she is staying away because its too hard to get progress on the article. Why? because many skeptic editors are so heavy handed with WP FRINGE that they do not see they are actually getting in the way of creating a good article about an interesting person.
SAS81 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- To repeat myself, "Why bring it up in a manner that ignores the previous discussion?" "Why do you repeatedly focus on criticisms after all the discussion about them?" "Why...without acknowledging the previous discussions?"
- You continue to want to assume biases in others with your labels of "the skeptic editors" and then try to get article changes made based upon those assumptions. Again, you're the one with the bias. Assumptions that others have biases is disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Primarily; to repeat my answer above, because it was not the same discussion so therefore the foundation of your question doesn't make much sense to me. It may have been a discussion about the same source, but the context, application, argument and usage entirely different and entirely unrelated. Also the discussion had nothing to do with removing Clinton from the article. I'm sorry you feel this is disruptive, but I guess I could make the same accusation towards you if I took your position (which I don't).
- Secondly; Even if it was the same discussion, it was not a closed discussion and all arguments that you and the other suspicious editors were giving me were not even in the context of what I was suggesting. I'm not sure why you are putting so much weight into those rebuttals, especially because they were, to me, straw man arguments that did not even address my inquiry. Additionally, and I think this is something that would be great if you are aware of - when there are 3 editors who are trying to slam me left and right, then give me some exaggerated policy application that does not even address my actual argument but the one they are imagining in their minds I am making - I'm not sure why I need to readdress those types of discussions in the first place.
- Thirdly: Are you actually suggesting that those editors whom are avowed skeptics or whom have very strong suspicions about Dr Chopra are somehow NOT biased towards the subject matter? That seems like a stretch of the imagination. Maybe it's the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about - but talking about it and addressing it is not disruptive. I can see where my bias comes into the picture - why can't you? SAS81 (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
What does it mean to you to be "without bias"?
(reposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism) - please answer here.
I'm curious, how do you propose that you can represent this materiel without bias when Deepak himself argues that objective reality is nothing more than shared subjective experiences shaped by personal experience (i.e., reality is biased). Honestly, I'm not being factitious, this is an honest question. What does it mean to you to be "without bias" from a biased worldview? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is an absolutely fair question and I really appreciate you approaching me like this. I'm so thrilled with this question I've supplied a wall of text, sheesh! I also don't mind coming over to your noticeboard. As to what it means to be 'without bias' - I'm not sure that is possible for anyone to be without bias. However I do believe that where circumstances require, we can at least attempt to view issues without our personal bias and report on them the best we can and this is very possible and something journalists or researchers have to do quite often. It's just a matter of framing things so our own personal bias is removed from our language (and the encyclopedia's). For example, what you wrote above is actually does a pretty good job. You may not agree with Dr Chopra's assessment of consciousness - and you may agree with for example Dan Dennet's framework for consciousness so if you're writing an encyclopedia or building an archive, you would just report that x said this, y said that and you would attribute their voices, not the voice of the encyclopedia to their statements. Without bias therefore means INCLUDING all facts and attributing all points of view directly to their sources without being represented as a source for those views or facts. We also have to be careful not to mislead a reader by interpreting the work of an author through the lens of our own bias. This can be challenging. Imagine if you had to frame the point of view of say someone you don't like (if your a dem and you had to frame the viewpoint of the tea party for example). So this is where skeptic editors face a challenge too! I'm a little wonky nerdy type, so I actually enjoy this sort of work and challenge.
- Also, I would not assume that I have the same bias that say Dr. Chopra would have regarding his views. Before I got this gig, I was not a 'follower' of Deepak Chopra and actually never read much of his work. I also did not have much an opinion on it either. Now that I dive into this work, I've actually been a little shocked to discover many things that I assumed were true about Dr Chopra were my own misperceptions (for example, I assumed he was an alternative medicine practitioner, he isn't) and I also was not aware of the high level of acceptance Dr Chopra has on the world stage. So unless someone is an extremist of some kind, I think most rational people can be aware of their own viewpoints and be aware of how those viewpoints are being represented and can take responsibility to represent those viewpoints without using biased language.
- let's keep this discussion going, yes? I'm not the enemy, and believe it or not, I am fascinated by this 'problem' and I think we can work together to find a productive solution. I think this will speak well for the skeptic community and Wikipedia. Problem I have is that since skeptic groups or organizations have so committed themselves in a certain direction - if they reach out and work with an opposing viewpoint they get pressure from their own peers which prevents a solution from occurring since they have locked themselves into a debate and any resolution will cause them to lose respect or position. Very human problem that has nothing to do with the ideology behind it, it's just human nature getting in the way. SAS81 (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I erroneously started this discussion in two places and it has carried on at the other location so I am closing this out. If you are interested in joining, see the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism#Huffpo article by Deepak Chopra. Cheers, --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
User page
I have semiprotected your userpage, you seem to be a vandalism target these days. Let me know if you want it removed at some point before expiry. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)