→Request permission to exceed evidence posting limit: add link to article Talk comment |
Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
::Here are a few more scholarly sources touching on these issues that haven't even been mentioned in the article yet.[https://books.google.ca/books?id=5gWfAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&dq=%22sam+harris%22,+%22neoconservative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EyIUVfbjNIKj8QXnp4HICA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20harris%22%2C%20%22neoconservative%22&f=false][https://books.google.ca/books?id=GQSJ5l24cQMC&pg=PA39&dq=%22sam+harris%22,+%22neoconservative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EyIUVfbjNIKj8QXnp4HICA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20harris%22%2C%20%22neoconservative%22&f=false][https://books.google.ca/books?id=0QwrBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&dq=%22sam+harris%22,+%22neoconservative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EyIUVfbjNIKj8QXnp4HICA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20harris%22%2C%20%22neoconservative%22&f=false]--[[User:Ubikwit|<span style="text-shadow:black 0.07em 0.03em;class=texhtml"><font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ubikwit| 連絡 ]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Ubikwit|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑</font>]]</sub> 15:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
::Here are a few more scholarly sources touching on these issues that haven't even been mentioned in the article yet.[https://books.google.ca/books?id=5gWfAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&dq=%22sam+harris%22,+%22neoconservative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EyIUVfbjNIKj8QXnp4HICA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20harris%22%2C%20%22neoconservative%22&f=false][https://books.google.ca/books?id=GQSJ5l24cQMC&pg=PA39&dq=%22sam+harris%22,+%22neoconservative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EyIUVfbjNIKj8QXnp4HICA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20harris%22%2C%20%22neoconservative%22&f=false][https://books.google.ca/books?id=0QwrBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&dq=%22sam+harris%22,+%22neoconservative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EyIUVfbjNIKj8QXnp4HICA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22sam%20harris%22%2C%20%22neoconservative%22&f=false]--[[User:Ubikwit|<span style="text-shadow:black 0.07em 0.03em;class=texhtml"><font face="Papyrus">Ubikwit</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ubikwit| 連絡 ]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/Ubikwit|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">見学/迷惑</font>]]</sub> 15:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::I'm afraid Harris is still rather out of scope here, as he's primarily notable for his religious (or anti-religious, as may be) work and views, and he's really not primarily a political figure. We'd rather keep this to political figures and issues than to people who are primarily notable for other things but happen to have talked about politics. The scope will get impossibly overbroad otherwise, as almost everything can be said to touch politics in some way or another, and many people express political views sometime or another. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 04:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:01, 27 March 2015
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Request permission to exceed evidence posting limit
This is going to require me to address the conduct more thoroughly, and of more editors, because there were overlapping discussions involving more than one editor among those I've characterized as engaged in advocacy (whether adding promotional, primary source-based material or obstructing critical material from secondary sources) on the Sam Harris article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Harris material looks to be very tangential, at best, to the scope of the case, which is American politics, as it seems primarily to relate to Harris' views on religion. Could you please explain how that's within scope here? This isn't meant to be a laundry list of every grievance people have against one another. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- The aspect of Harris's writings and speeches that has caused controversy with respect to its political implications seems to be twofold: first, he embraces a form of scientism and applies that to ethics in a manner that has resulted in him being criticized for espousing a (metaphisical, abstracted) form of positivism that is conducive to scientific racism and causes him to discount and/or misrepresent history; secondly, his singling out of Islam as the religion that evaluates most poorly based on those standards has resulted in his being criticized more directly with respect to his statements on Islam, with allegations of having a "right-wing worldview" comparable to his neoconservative supporters regarding Muslims and US policy in the Middle East, promoting "politically-useful bigotry", applying Huntington's "clash of civilizations" interpretation to current political problems, etc.
- The aspect of Harris's writings and speeches that has caused controversy with respect to its political implications seems to be twofold: first, he embraces a form of scientism and applies that to ethics in a manner that has resulted in him being criticized for espousing a (metaphisical, abstracted) form of positivism that is conducive to scientific racism and causes him to discount and/or misrepresent history; secondly, his singling out of Islam as the religion that evaluates most poorly based on those standards has resulted in his being criticized more directly with respect to his statements on Islam, with allegations of having a "right-wing worldview" comparable to his neoconservative supporters regarding Muslims and US policy in the Middle East, promoting "politically-useful bigotry", applying Huntington's "clash of civilizations" interpretation to current political problems, etc.
- The conduct issues on that article related to editors seeking to prevent material on the political implications of Harris' views, as discussed by academics writing within the field of their specialization, primarily, into the article. Various arguments were made, with one being that religion and politics are the same in monotheismI quote the editor from this comment, so the material in the subsection on each religion corresponded to political views, making explicit mention of the secondary source commentary redundant he elaborates on his position, etc. As I indicated on his talk page, that seemed to be a strategy aimed at defining a scope excluding material explicitly having political import, which would have preemptively precluded the addition of the material specifically from scholarly sources I was trying to add.
- The conduct issues on that article related to editors seeking to prevent material on the political implications of Harris' views, as discussed by academics writing within the field of their specialization, primarily, into the article. Various arguments were made, with one being that religion and politics are the same in monotheismI quote the editor from this comment, so the material in the subsection on each religion corresponded to political views, making explicit mention of the secondary source commentary redundant he elaborates on his position, etc. As I indicated on his talk page, that seemed to be a strategy aimed at defining a scope excluding material explicitly having political import, which would have preemptively precluded the addition of the material specifically from scholarly sources I was trying to add.
- Note that the reception of Harris' views has seen commentary addressing implications with respect to political topics such as US foreign policy, torture, the war on terror, ethnic/racial profiling, "the national security state", etc. A survey of some of the material can be seen in the removed "Political" subsection here.
- Note that the reception of Harris' views has seen commentary addressing implications with respect to political topics such as US foreign policy, torture, the war on terror, ethnic/racial profiling, "the national security state", etc. A survey of some of the material can be seen in the removed "Political" subsection here.
- I see the scenario as follows. Insofar as US politics is caught up in conflicts with Muslims, and insofar as Harris' writings and statements have caused controversy regarding US policy, etc., overlapping with those conflicts, the high-quality RS commentary on his political views is not tangential, and the manifold tendentious attempts to exclude it from Wikipedia is an editor conduct issue. If you'd like me to constrain the scope, I'd be happy to adjust my evidence submissions so as to accommodate input from the Committee on this situation in advance.
- I see the scenario as follows. Insofar as US politics is caught up in conflicts with Muslims, and insofar as Harris' writings and statements have caused controversy regarding US policy, etc., overlapping with those conflicts, the high-quality RS commentary on his political views is not tangential, and the manifold tendentious attempts to exclude it from Wikipedia is an editor conduct issue. If you'd like me to constrain the scope, I'd be happy to adjust my evidence submissions so as to accommodate input from the Committee on this situation in advance.
- Here are a few more scholarly sources touching on these issues that haven't even been mentioned in the article yet.[1][2][3]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Harris is still rather out of scope here, as he's primarily notable for his religious (or anti-religious, as may be) work and views, and he's really not primarily a political figure. We'd rather keep this to political figures and issues than to people who are primarily notable for other things but happen to have talked about politics. The scope will get impossibly overbroad otherwise, as almost everything can be said to touch politics in some way or another, and many people express political views sometime or another. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here are a few more scholarly sources touching on these issues that haven't even been mentioned in the article yet.[1][2][3]--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)