Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Glengordon01
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Regarding Glengordon01's response
In terms of editorial discussion, the debate hinges on whether Glengordon01's citations satisfy WP:NOR: none of the sources he cites makes a direct statement that Charun carries a labrys. As such, his assertions constitute original research. Those sources might be fine for a term paper or a scholarly article, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source that does not publish original interpretations. If the labrys interpretation exists within the scholarly field then at least one reliable source ought to state it plainly. No particular expertise in Etruscan mythology is necessary to understand that principle: I do have a degree in history from an Ivy League university, which makes me well qualified to distinguish between literal and interpretive source readings.
From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." The question at Charun regards not the scholarly quality of Glengordon01's sources but whether they are applicable to the issue at hand and he has failed to present any source that satisfies Wikipedia policy. Impartial editors, mutually unknown to each other or to the parties involved in this dispute, have arrived at the page and agreed upon the same conclusion.
Glengordon01 asserts that my conduct has been inappropriate. Regarding the statement I made, I responded to an alert you posted, asked both sides to be more civil, and politely asked for citations that conform to site policy. In return you have called me an idiot, an illiterate, and a troll. You owe me an apology.[1]
- He characterized me as an illiterate at Talk:Charun with And Durova, be honest... Don't be a robocop. Start taking out some interlibrary loans for yourself. You're in this for the long haul or not at all. Join us in the literacy campaign.[2]
- He characterized me as an idiot at Talk:Charun in an edit note elaborating to avoid confusion amongst idiots[3]
- He characterized me as a troll on my user talk page with Only other trolls would support this destructive behaviour for more than a month straight.[4]
Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground: Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. I do not hold any grudge in this matter. The Charun page is not a contest of personal worth: it's an encyclopedia article. As a personal policy I do request that impolite behavior cease and have remained impartial[5]. My goal remains the resolution of this conflict. Durova 05:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- *He characterized me as an illiterate at Talk:Charun with And Durova, be honest... Don't be a robocop. Start taking out some interlibrary loans for yourself. You're in this for the long haul or not at all. Join us in the literacy campaign.[6]
This is an example of misrepresentation and misunderstanding. "Join us in the literacy campaign" was never meant as an attack on Durova's literacy. It was a general description of what Wikipedia attempts to be (which claims to be an "encyclopedia" afterall). Spreading information, not misinformation, is what I actually meant concerning the "literacy campaign". Durova needs to have "good faith" but is too hasty to see personal insults in my wording, thereby fueling further conflict.
- *He characterized me as an idiot at Talk:Charun in an edit note elaborating to avoid confusion amongst idiots[7]
"Characterized me as an idiot" is a stretch. Nowhere in this quote is there such a comment whatsoever. If Durova feels this, this is not my doing, but caused by more lack of "good faith". The edit note wasn't meant to describe Durova as an idiot since there was no confusion up to that point from him/her. It was meant to refer to a potential misunderstanding by people I feel might continue to act like idiots by looking for conflict through nitpicking, without naming any names. Durova assumed it was a personal attack on him anyways. Sigh. Generalized comments that attack no one real are being misconstrued into personal attacks. I admit however the way in which I speak is easy to misunderstand.
- *He characterized me as a troll on my user talk page with Only other trolls would support this destructive behaviour for more than a month straight.[8]
It is nothing more than my opinion, and one I still have, which is based on this very desperate need to twist my statements into things that they are not and in ways that violate every principle of Wikipedia, causing confusion, misunderstandings, conflict and ridicule.
This attitude, even if by an administrator or 3rd party, is not encouraging healthy contribution and I think it's telling that Etruscan specialists who no doubt are aware of the Wikipedia have been staying completely away from Wikipedia to edit these articles. From my own experience, I know that I will not be contributing in the future. Perhaps WP needs to create more outreach to academics in the field if it desires to be a real encyclopedia, but it first has to nip these unnecessary hostilities in the bud by those who admit to lack of knowledge on the subject. --Glengordon01 13:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
"In terms of editorial discussion, the debate hinges on whether Glengordon01's citations satisfy WP:NOR: none of the sources he cites makes a direct statement that Charun carries a labrys."
This is another major problem and people who lack knowledge in the subject of Etruscanology are unaware that this expectation isn't reasonable. The reason is because Etruscan texts are few in number, and none speak directly about their religion, and it would be a pipedream to expect to find hyperspecific details like these written out in Etruscan for anyone to see anyway. We would also not have a hope of finding this information in Classical Greek or Roman authors since they obviously were very naive about some aspects of their own origins and the origins of the Etruscans.
So the only place to find such comments are in modern texts pertaining to Etruscanology. However there are no comprehensive books available that detail all of this and yet the symbolic relationship between the double-axe and hammer is available in other disciplines, such as Comparative European mythology and comparisons in particular to, for example, Celtic mythology (related because the Etruscans had interacted with them and this is well documented and sourced too) or Near East mythology (a relationship also published long ago and numerous times because of the relationship of the Piacenza liver to a previously discovered Babylonian liver model used for haruspicy, cf. Jastrow, 1908). There is a published connection between Celtic Sucellos and Charun for example. This is very much relevant here but Durova et al continue to turn a deaf ear.
So by dismissing brutely all overlapping areas of study such as these when authors writing about Etruscan are themselves writing all the time about these very connections, Scottandrewhutchins, a person apparently more concerned in Charun based on his toy aspects (cf. Monster in My Pocket and his many other toy/media-related contributions) is forcing a ridiculously narrow POV on this article based on his lack of knowledge on the subject.
To no fault of Durova nor ONUnicorn, they simply do not understand Etruscan mythology well enough to see the pitfalls of believing authors in the subject blindly nor the relevance of overlapping fields. If they did, their criteria for "relevance" would not be so naively restrictive and the article would benefit greatly from these added perspectives. --Glengordon01 14:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, one more thing (apologies but this is a very complex subject that can't be simplified down). On the current Charun page, Scott sites Marija Gimbutas connection between Charun and Kali. However this is simply not the view of most Etruscanologists and Marija Gimbutas was not an Etruscanologist. She specialized herself with books pertaining to neolithic goddesses and symbolisms of the Mediterranean. Any direct connections to Hindu mythology are simply not acceptable because quite simply Etruscans have no connection to India. Otherwise, we may as well say that Christianity is related to Shintoism and Egyptian mythology is related to Inuit beliefs. This article needs to be worded more carefully than this. (So I suggest putting Gimbutas' comments below as an aside about various theories/opinions of authors, not up top as though it were fact.) --Glengordon01 14:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Durova: "The Charun page is not a contest of personal worth: it's an encyclopedia article. As a personal policy I do request that impolite behavior cease and have remained impartial[5]."
And I appreciate this. If I contribute in the future, I will try to word my sentences more carefully, although I'm not one to be fond of PC-police in my daily life. --Glengordon01 14:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NOR
This is not a matter of particular editors being rigid. Site policy itself is rigid:
The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.
The same policy also states:
The original motivation for the no original research policy was to combat people with personal theories, such as cranks and trolls, who would attempt to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas and to themselves.
However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.
This is why a consensus of editors have agreed that Glengordon01's citations fail to satisfy site policy. Assessment of topicality occurs prior to, and independent of, the particular scholarly merits of a source. Editors' expertise at weighing source material becomes relevant only after WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR have all been satisfied. Glengordon01's approach amounts to an attempt to create an side window by which material that he favors can enter Wikipedia while evading the requirements that apply to every other editor. Policy already provides an appropriate back door: publish independently in a reputable venue and then cite that publication in the article.
Attempts to find fault with Scottandrewhutchins's citations are likewise misguided. All of those sources do satisfy the basic requirements of site policy. Doubts about the reliability of one or two cannot impugn the rest, nor are such questions meritorious when they are themselves unreferenced, nor - assuming for the purposes of discussion that other editors agreed to disallow The Encyclopedia of Monsters - that disallowal would not legitimize an opposing argument that still consists entirely of original research.
Suppose for a moment that Glengordon01's assertions are indeed correct: that Charun carried a labrys, etc. and the secondary and tertiary references that call this instrument a hammer have been the dupes of a sort of misguided meme. Wikipedia policy requires the site to repeat this meme. While this state of affairs may be frustrating, the way to correct that situation is through new scholarly publication and letters to the authors of inaccurate works, so that errors can be corrected in future editions.
[edit] WP:CIVILITY
An editor who posts to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts should expect equal scrutiny directed at all participants of a page. Glengordon01 followed up with a particular civility complaint about Scottandrewhutchins at my user talk page[9]. Despite his protestation that, I'm not one to be fond of PC-police in my daily life, it is he who has repeatedly invited this issue - nor has he protested in any way when requests for civility were directed at the other disputant. In the words of Miss Manners:
- Rude people don't believe in rudeness. They believe in manners with exceptions for themselves.
Durova 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, more misunderstanding. Please, be careful and stop misrepresenting my points. I no longer care about your vote and I will no longer contribute. This is not about "ego" for me. This is just about facts. I'm not in the movie business. If I wanted to be on stage, that's where I'd be. I'd rather sit in front of a computer because data doesn't talk back to me :) Okay, everyone understand me now? Good.
There is a literal interpretation of the iconography (yes, a hammer, WE ALL AGREE) and a symbolic interpretation (which is derived from the labrys, afaic). So yes, yes, yes, yes, it's a "hammer" in literal sense. My wording wasn't accurate and simple enough so it was and still is apparently prone to misunderstanding on WP.
At any rate, small potatoes at this point. The few have voted as a democracy, I understand, and if I don't agree because I think the policies imply dangerous things for the future of "facts", it has no bearing on you. I'm just stating my peace and signing out. No more bickering.
Thank you, goodbye. --Glengordon01 21:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe one more thing :P, the amount of posts that Scottandrewhutchins, the one filing this complaint, is excessive to any people I know. This is not good for the future of WP if certain individuals can literally swamp various articles with twenty or thirty posts at a time to impose their views. Is this really normal psychologically? (And don't twist this as an insult, this is a serious and honest question.)
For example:
-
-
- On Monster in My Pocket you see in the history the latest swamp of probably a good forty or fifty posts in a matter of two days. Reverting that if need be becomes much more of a pain so I'm sure people throw their hands up instead.
- On Frank Joslyn Baum, Same thing[10]. Wow!
- On Charun, the same disturbing pattern of 50 posts in one go (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charun&action=history).
-
And this goes on and on for each and every article that he announces on his user page to have contributed on. Even his list is ridiculously extensive and most of it consists of stuff that only he is contributing on. So it should come to surprise that when human interaction and cooperation is required, he gets irritated and takes it strongly as an attack on his merit (because he craves attention and worth through WP).
This seems like a story of a man that obsessively seeks attention and merit on a system that shouldn't be about ego and advertisement. It should be about sincere interest in and understanding on the topics one contributes in. --Glengordon01 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be abnormally fixated on me. If you think there is something wrong with making revisions and corrections as I notice a need, especially when I am trying to correct my own errors/typos or trying to bring an article to GA status, you really need to look into your own psychology that you feel the need to attack me. ----Scottandrewhutchins 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You have reedited your above comment to make it seem less hostile but the original version is here. --Glengordon01 19:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I requested that he refactor his comment as a matter of courtesy and he complied promptly. Normally refactoring is done by strikethrough instead of deletion, but I believe this was an act of good faith. People sometimes write things in the heat of the moment that they don't really mean. Durova 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding other editors
If a user conduct RfC opens on Scottandrewhutchins then that information would be pertinent there. As you requested I posted a warning to his user page about other conduct and if I see more problematic behavior on his part I may follow up with other steps. However, this RfC has a narrower focus. I should add that he did not start this RfC, nor was he consulted until after it opened. User:ONUnicorn and I started this as neutral third parties because we felt a nonpartisan RfC would have the best chance at succeeding.
You do seem to be well informed about the subject and I for one hope to see that knowledge benefit Wikipedia. It takes a certain kind of restraint to edit on a subject one knows particularly well, to exclude reasonable conclusions that don't meet site requirements. Durova 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Continued Harassment
See my talk page, where you will see that Glengordon01 has continued to violate Wikipedia's Civility policy. Also note the Charun talk page, where he is now saying that I am insulting his sources. Glengordon01 is projecting onto me the character assassination that he is doing to everyone else. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
On his main page, I have placed [citation needed] on every statement that I consider libelous about myself or others on his part, either through outright lies or obvious distortions. I'm sure he will delete this, but it will be visible in his history. A Wikipedia user page is not the place for libel. --Scottandrewhutchins 10:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
