User talk:Gwen Gale

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Remember this chap?

Since I see you blocked him in January, No. 1 and especially No. 2. Wow. I see you have his IP shut down for a month. I get a bad feeling about this. What do you think? Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I saw this come up again yesterday. Looking at it today, I'm rather close to blocking for personal attacks. I also see way too much OR in how he deals with the topic, though he would clearly disagree with anything I have to say about his behaviour, which makes it all even more worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re the above

Regarding your edit [1]. I fail to see how I am responsible for personal attacks when clearly the other editor has been making defamatory statements about my expertise in support of misinformation he has linked to on wikipedia. I consider it a thoroughly proven fact that the page http://www.tenstringguitar.com/tuningsforthe10string.html contains misinformation. No one can honestly claim that "four" is the same as "eight". Though after repeated warnings about the content of this page, Andrewa continued to reference this page and to defend it by claiming that saying "four" is the same as saying "eight" and that this is a non-issue. How convenient. I think your conduct in this matter is unfair (and you've evidently not looked thoroughly into the contents) as I am clearly the one who is defending verifiable facts as stated in music journals by the inventor of the modern 10-string guitar (my teacher's teacher), whereas Andrewa is falsely accusing me of attacking him (where is the evidence? on what grounds?) because I point out that he repeatedly, knowingly links to and defends misinformation.

If there is a case for personal attack, if you can PROVE that Andrewa did not link to false information (this is a contents issue), then do so. Otherwise, please stop making false accusations against me. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of attacks without any evidence and without considering the contents of the argument. If you continue to make accusations without proof this is nothing more than a personal attack on me.

See Andrewa's talk page. I have addressed his false accusations against me. These too are attacks against me, not vice versa. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

more on false allegations

There is no vendetta and no personal attacks, Andrewa says. Below is my response to his false allegations made against me (which arem indeed attacks on me and NOT vice versa):

On the contrary, here, under Sources, you make a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, you have falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music, with only the exception of a few things passed directly from Yepes to Fritz Buss to myself. (These autograph manuscripts are a valuable resource in themselves.) Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group (such as the yahoo one you yourself have linked to). So there also you have made a false accusation.

Thirdly, even if I had linked to the myspace page I maintain about the 10-string guitar and not www.tenstringguitar.info, this is still acceptable as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID as the fact of the matter is that I am a recognized authority on the 10-string guitar of Narciso Yepes. (If you question that - I've given you the contact details of my mentor Fritz Buss, who studied with Narciso Yepes from 1960-1986 and was considered by Yepes one of his top students and one of the top 3 guitar teachers in the world [2] - call Fritz Buss and ask him whether Viktor van Niekerk is an authority on the 10-string guitar or not.)

You also make the following defamatory attack on my authority by claiming "So she [Janet Marlow] is a more authoritative figure than Viktor, at this stage." [3] Your claim is based on nothing scholarly, only google hits and the fact that Marlow has self-published a method book. A method book, I might add, with proven misinformation contained therein. Among many errors in that book: In the front matter the author states falsely that "Narciso Yepes [...] heard that there were four tones with less sustain due to missing sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar". That is, even though Yepes ubiquitously indicates eight (not four) missing resonances in various articles and interviews as referenced here as well as in his Speech of Ingression into the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando delivered on 30 April 1989: "The strings that I have added incorporate all the natural resonance that the instrument lacked in eight of the twelve notes of the equal tempered scale."

Despite discussing this last issue with you numerous times, you still made the folowing statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [4] That is, even though eight clearly does not equal four and both sides are clearly not describing the same thing, you still defend your support of misinformation.

Even though I've explained this before, and my site explains it in detail, I will say it again:

The western musical scale has 12 notes per octave. On the guitar, Yepes observed, four of these when palyed on a treble string induced a unison resonance from a bass string. These four notes are E, A, B, and D. If any octave of any of these notes is played on a treble string, a bass string reproduces it in unison. If A5 is played, A5 is reproduced by resonance on a bass string. Yepes observed that the other eight notes do not have the same resonance. These are C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#. By adding four strings to the guitar tuned a singular way (C, A#, G#, F#), all twelve notes of the octave, played anywhere on the treble strings, now have unison resonances from bass strings. If C#4 is played C#4 is reproduced on string 10 (F#). If F#4 is palyed, F#4 is reproduced on strign 10 by resonance. If both C#4 and F#4 ar played, string 10 produces both the pitch of C#4 and the pitch of F#4 simultaneously. This is a proven fact of acoustics.

If Janet Marlow claims there are only "four missing resonances on the six string guitar" (and in her book even attributes this to "Narciso Yepes"), it is totally false. Yepes said eight missing resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#) not four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb). Marlow knows that because she has (in Soundboard magazine) referenced an interview with Yepes (Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: p. 26.) in which Yepes very clearly indicates which notes do and do not have resonance. Yet she has published at least twice the disinformation that Yepes added four strings (resonators) because four resonances were missing.

If you (Andrewa) still have a problem understanding this, I am happy to meet with you and illustrate it on an actual 10-string guitar, since you've never owned/played one. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. Andrewa has also falsely accused me of "outing" him, even though his user page already gives his full name, so this is no secret. And he has falsely accused me of sock-puppetry even though I explained to him that sometimes it seems on my un-refreshed browser that I am still logged in even though I am not. And he is well aware of my IP, so I would have to be an idiot to try to use my IP as a sock-puppet. I will look up the links to these too, if necessary. But there is already evidence against Andrewa for making false allegations (in other worlds attacks) on me. Where is the evidence of my alleged recent "attacks" on him? Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I think this is enough, and I hope you agree with me. I'm a little concerned about the last words added here. I can deal with it but I'd rather try to stay more neutral on the article talk page first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to be concerned about. Andrewa and I simply live in the same city and he has attended one of my recitals before upon my invitation. He did not use the opportunity to ask me anything relevant except what make of guitar I played. So I am happy to extend an offer to him to illustrate Resonance rather than talking about it, if he insists he still does not understand the difference between talking about "four missing resonances" (MArlow, whom he has defended) and "eight missing resonances" (Yepes).

I'm wholly neutral. I don't see any cited sources in the above, only original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Gwen Gale, thank you for your comment. However, I have delivered proof (on my user talk page) that Andrewa was aware of the misinformation at least as early as 25 February and yet still defended it in a post on 2 March as not being inaccurate rather than simply removing the misinformative link, so I cannot assume good faith or a mistake. Claiming that 4=8 is not a mistake anyone with basic competency in maths or English is likely to make. Yet this is exactly what Andrewa claims by defending that saying there are "four missing resonances on the 6-string guitar" is the same as saying there are "eight missing resonances". I think the facts speak strongly for themselves as I have given ample proof of, if you care to follow up my leads. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources: Gwen, if you had taken the time to follow up my leads to sources, you would have known that this is based not on original research but on verifiable texts in journal articles. Narciso Yepes ubiquitously spoke of "eight missing resonances" (and listed them), not "four" (as stated in the disputed link that Andrewa has been defending). I've listed the paper sources for Narciso Yepes's statements on my page here [5]. Please do have a look at the Reference list there at least before you just go claiming that this is "original research". There is a huge difference between talking about "four missing resonances" (as Marlow does, in a link defended by Adrewa) and "eight missing resonances" (as Yepes does). 4 does not = 8. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow up references before you cry "original research"

Gwen, please do make the effort to look up the sources of my claims, which come from music journals, not original research.

References Kozinn, A. 1980 "Narciso Yepes: Classical Master of the 10-String Guitar". Frets Magazine, February: pp. 39-42.

Kozinn, A. 1981. "Narciso Yepes and His 10-String Guitar". The New York Times, Nov. 22: p. D21-22.

Scheider, J. 1983. "Conversation with Narciso Yepes". Soundboard, Spring: pp. 66-68.

Sensier, P. 1975. "Narciso Yepes and the Ten-String Guitar". Guitar III(9): p. 27.

Snitzler, L. 1978. "Narciso Yepes: The 10-String Guitar: Overcoming the Limitations of Six Strings". Guitar Player 12: pp. 26, 42, 46, 48, 52.

Yepes, N. 1973. " The Ten-String Guitar". Trans. Lionel Salter. La Cantarela, July.

Yepes, N. 1989. "Ser Instrumento" {To Be an Instrument}. Speech of Ingression into the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando delivered on 30 April 1989. [Available to download in Spanish on www.narcisoyepes.org ]

And there is more. Would you also like the sources in Spanish?

These all ubiquitously quote Yepes as speaking of four present resonances on the 6-string guitar and 8 missing resonances. The link provided by Andrewa and defended by him spoke of only FOUR missing resonances (thus eight present ones). This is not original research nor is it hard to see the difference between 4 and eight. This is becoming tedious. Please look up these articles and cease falsely claiming "original research". Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote me some verbatim text, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

'The first reason is that the 6-string guitar is not a "balanced" instrument. On a normal guitar, when you play the notes E, A, B, or D, you always have overtones, and therefore, a resonance from harmonics caused by sympathetic vibration with these four notes. For example, if you play the first string E open, then stop it, you will hear the resonance of this note in the fifth and sixth strings. When you play A on the same string, it is the same. This is a well-known acoustical phenomenon; it's nothing new. Sympathetic vibration can be the reason why a musical note can cause a certain object in the room to rattle. Well, this vibration is produced basically by only four notes on the traditional 6-string guitar. But the other eight notes of the chromatic scale are without strong overtones, so there is hardly any resonance at all. The question in my mind was, "Why have only four notes which are very rich and beautiful and eight notes that sound very dry?" Then I had the idea that the guitar could sound not only louder but better with the additional strings. Also, if I have the resonance, I can always stop it, and when I stop it, you can hear the difference. But you hear me stop it only because I have it in the first place; if I don't have the resonance, I can't stop it.' (Yepes quoted in Snitzler 1978)

"Normally, the tuning of the four supplementary bass strings is C, Bb, Ab, Gb. In that way I have overtones for all twelve notes of the scale."(Yepes quoted in Snitzler 1978)

"My idea in creating this guitar was to correct the guitar's lack of balance. The 6-string guitar has four harmonics: E, A, B, and D. If you play one of those notes on the first string, and then stop the string from sounding, you will notice that the note continues to sound, softly, because its vibrations have caused harmonics on the other strings. But if you play F, F#, G, G#, Bb, C, or C#, you will have no residual resonance at all. On the 10-string guitar, I have resonance on all 12 notes of the scale." (Yepes, quoted in Kozinn 1980) [Either the interviewer or Yepes forgot to mention D#, but this is implied by Yepes anyway as he says 4 are present - E, A, B and D - and eight are absent, though on his guitar the resonance for all 12 notes is present.]

"My reasons [for using the 10-string guitar] were purely musical, and the first of them was that the guitar was not properly balanced. There was no equilibrium, because of the 12 notes of the scale, only four - E, A, B, D - had any resonance. If you play one of those notes and then stop the string with your finger, you will hear the sound lingering. But if you play one of the other eight notes of the scale, the sound dies immediately. On the 10-string guitar, I have resonance on all 12 notes." (Yepes quoted in Kozinn 1981)

Sensier: "The first [reason why Yepes added the lower strings tuned C, Bb, Ab, Gb] is to do with resonance. On the six-string guitar only four notes of the scale have natural resonances or overtones, E, A, B, an D. If you play notes such as C, F, Bb or F# there are no resonances. With the ten-string guitar all notes have natural resonance which you can employ or not, as you wish." (Sensier 1975)

"In the first place, the four supplementary strings give it a balanced sound which the six-string guitar is far from having. In fact, at the moment of playing a note on one string, another begins to vibrate by sympathetic resonance. On the six-string guitar this phenomenon is produced only on four notes, while on mine the twelve notes of the scale each have their sympathetic resonance. Thus the lopsided sonority of the six-string guitar is transformed into a wider and equal sonority on a ten-string guitar. Secondly, I do not content myself with letting the extra strings vibrate passively in sympathy; I use them, I play them according to the demands of the music to be interpreted. I can control the volume of the resonances, or I can suppress them. I can damp one if it is inconvenient in a given passage, but if I can do this it is precisely because I have these resonances available. This allows me to modify at will not only the volume but also the tone-colours." (Yepes 1973)

"I have not added four strings to the guitar out of a whim, but out of necessity. The strings that I have added incorporate all the natural resonance that the instrument lacked in eight of the twelve notes of the equal tempered scale." (Yepes 1989) (My translation of the Spanish in this last quote)

COMPARE:

Janet Marlow: www.tenstringguitar.com/tuningsforthe10string.html [6]

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument."

Janet Marlow: "Narciso Yepes [...] heard that there were four tones with less sustain due to missing sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar". (Marlow, Janet. 2005. Playing the Ten-String Guitar: An Approach Guide for Guitarists. Litchfield, CT: Janet Marlow Music LLC.)

MArlow is the lady featured in this photo on Andrewa's site [7] and also the author of the link (quoted above) that Andrewa has been defending as saying the same thing as Yepes, despite the fact that I previously informed him that there is an undeniable difference between Yepes's verifiable, published statements and those made by Marlow. (Re the photo: Marlow must have the copyright of this as it appears on her site here, bottom left and above the THE logo: [8] .)

You cannot call this original research. It is plain for anyone who can count and read English to see that Marlow and Yepes are describing "four" and "eight" missing resonances respectively. Even if you don't admit my defence [9] of Yepes's statements (based not on original research but thoroughly proven facts of the science of acoustics), you cannot deny that Marlow and Yepes are saying different things. As such, the Marlow link is misinformative. It says FOUR missing resonances and not EIGHT. And Andrewa claims the four = eight, or that it makes no difference to say four resonances are missing or eight are missing.

Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Viktor. I'll go over this carefully this evening, when I have the time to do so.

Again, however, the word misinformative is not on here. An editor could be making a mistake, the source could be mistaken, or there could be different takes on word meanings and descriptions of resonances (single strings echoing more than one note through partials and so on). Carrying on with that word is a personal attack. Stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I am now rewriting the ten-string articles. This is a slow and meticulous process. I have all the hard copies of documents to go through to reference as I write. If I had not done so in the very old, original Ten-string guitar it was simply because I did not know how to write the code to reference on wikipedia. I now do.

As for the above. I will refrain from using this word again, anew. However, in response to the above, yes, a single string (say 10=F2#) can resonate with two pitches played on the higher strings and actually produce both pitches (say, F4# AND C4#) simultaneously through the phenomenon of resonance. This still does not change the matter, but only supports what Yepes claimed. Yepes said that the 6-string guitar has 4 resonances (E, A, B and D), the E's from the octave harmonics of 6=E2 and the compound perfect fifth harmonics of 5=A2; the A's from the octave harmonics of 5=A2 and the compound perfect fifth harmonics of 4=D3; the B's from the the compound perfect fifth harmonics of 6=E2; and the D's from the octave harmonics of 4=D3. Yepes furthermore said that his tuning of the 10-string guitar added the other eight resonances: 1 C, 2 C#, 3 D#, 4 F, 5 F#, 6 G, 7 G#, 8 A#. So if you play A4#, F4 and A3# simultaneously on strings 1, 2 and 3, then string 8=A2# will resonate and actually reproduce all three notes. But on the 6-string guitar, four notes of the scale consistently have this resonance (E, A, B, and D) and the other eight notes do not. On the guitar Yepes invented, with the tuning C2, A2#, G2#, F2# in the basses, all the 12 notes of the chromatic scale (in all octaves) of the treble strings have this resonance.

Regardless of the scientific defence of Yepes's claims, we have a problem when Yepes has ubiquitously stated 4 present resonances on the 6-string guitar and 8 missing ones, and then other authors/editors state this the wrong way around as 4 missing resonances (and the implied 8 present resonances). Another bit of information to consider is that in a 1980 article (Marlow, Janet. 1980. “Notes on the Ten-String Guitar”. Soundboard 7(4): pp. 151-154) Marlow cites (on pp. 151 & 154) a 1978 interview with Narciso Yepes, conducted by Larry Snitzler, wherein Yepes unequivocally indicates that there are “eight notes of the chromatic scale” that lack sympathetic resonance on the six-string guitar (Guitar Player 12, p. 26). Yet after putting it in writing that Marlow has read this interview stating eight missing resonances, after citing it, she claims multiple times, both in her book and on the site quoted earlier/above that Yepes heard four missing resonances. And this is the author whose photo appears on Andrewa's website and whose work Andrewa defends as being more authoritative than my attempts at referencing Yepes's actual statements. Please tell me I'm not the only one seeing a POV or conflict of interest here. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

PoV is ok, conflict of interest is allowed, but WP:V always has sway. So far, it looks highly likely to me that there is a way through this (what seems to be a disagreement in the sources but what may be a different take on terminologies within the sources).

I hope you're beginning to understand that the most helpful thing you can do is assume good faith in other editors and don't speak of them in ways that could be taken as claims they're willfully harming the project.

I'll look at the quotes you've given much more deeply tonight. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint Regarding Gwen Gale's Conduct in Deleting the Alex Jones Criticism Section

This is a complaint relating to the conduct of Administrator Gwen Gale with specific reference to her summary deletion of the section labelled “Criticism” in the Alex Jones Talk Show Host page on 15 March 2009.

The text deleted read as follows :

Criticism  	 

- In July 2000, a group of ACAC (Austin Community Access Center) programmers alleged that their freedom -- specifically, their right to free speech and to disagree with Jones -- was threatened, by what they called Jones' heavy-handed tactics. The programmers' allegations -- which they made public by both broadcasting them on ACAC shows and posting them on Web pages -- were that Jones used both ACAC policy and legal maneuvers to intimidate them or get them thrown off the air. - - Tensions between Jones and others active in the local public access broadcasting scene culminated in an incident that occurred in the parking lot of the broadcasting center. Jones' account - that he was attacked by four thugs one of whom was wielding a knife - has been challenged as untruthful by others who claim that Jones himself initiated the incident by challenging someone who had insulted him to a fight which subsequently took place in the parking lot, resulting in Jones being soundly beaten by his opponent.

Her most substantive comments relating to the summary deletion were as follows : “single source cited says it's not clear what even happened” I've removed it following WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT, given the single cited source says it's not even clear what happened, it's nothing but a non-notable, second-hand anecdote about what may or may not have been a parking lot brawl. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The grounds (as you put it) are WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The complaint is based on five points : 1/ Gwen Gale failed to follow proper policy with regard to deleting biographical material on living persons, viz. discussing it beforehand. The section had existed for some time, had been discussed and commented on extensively, and had been edited by several persons. As far as I am aware, Gwen Gale had no prior involvement in the page or the section concerned. Certainly, I had never seen her name in any of the page history. Unless it constituted a grave breach of some other policy, which not even Gwen Gale has claimed, any possible deletion should have been discussed beforehand and not executed summarily. To quote the BLP policy : “Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed.”

No complaint about the nature of the material was made beforehand; no opportunity for improvement or rectification was offered.

2/ Having failed to discuss it properly beforehand, Gwen Gale also failed to discuss it properly afterwards. She made a few general remarks, using terms which, as will be discussed later, do not form part of any Wikipedia policy, viz. “single sourced, anecdotal”, and breezily referred those who wanted to discuss the matter with her to general Wikipedia policy documents, such as Biography of Living Persons or Verifiability. As will be shown in what follows the text did not violate either of these policy documents. Gwen Gale refused multiple specific requests to quote the exact passages of the Biography on Living Persons or Verifiability policies which she claimed had been violated. This refusal to properly discuss a summary deletion is against Wikipedia conduct guidelines and not acceptable behaviour in an Administator.

3/ Gwen Gale’s comments on the summary deletion reveal that she does not understand the core Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.

4/ Gwen Gale’s comments indicate that she does not understand the proper scope of Wikipedia’s policy on Verifiability.

5/ Gwen Gale’s comments reveal that she does not understand Wikipedia’s Biography on Living Persons policy.

The only serious grounds on which deletion of the deleted text could be justified is Weight. This is not the ground on which Gwen Gale chose to defend it. She repeatedly cited BLP and V as the core defence of her actions, demonstrating that her judgement is massively flawed and that her administrative powers should be revoked. The core issue here is not the content. The core issue is Gwen Gale’s conduct and judgement. The Weight issue will, however, be discussed at the end.

Gwen Gale’s Misunderstanding of the Wikipedia’s Guidelines on Reliable Sourcing

It is clear that Gwen Gale does not understand Wikipedia’s policy on sourcing. In stating that the claims embodied in the deleted text were “anecdotal”, she is effectively second-guessing the judgement of the original reliable source, viz. The Austin Chronicle. She is implicitly expressing the view that the Austin Chronicle’s assembled journalists, editors, sub-editors and lawyers made an error in judgement in publishing the article in the first place. This is completely unacceptable and represents a FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN JUDGEMENT. It is in no way appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make their own subjective judgements about the editorial standards of highly reputable and professional publications. It is the equivalent of an editor disputing a reference to a professional academic journal on the basis that “the author is only a professor at a low-grade university, therefore his opinion doesn’t count for much.” Those judgements must be made by the editorial staff of the publication concerned; anything else opens up a veritable Pandora’s box of subjectivity. The only basis on which such a contentious judgement could be made would be one which included an impeachment of the general quality of the source publication, The Austin Chronicle, and the assertion of a claim that it should no longer be regarded as a reputable high-quality source. No one, including Gwen Gale, has seriously advanced that claim. In any case, the article makes it clear that the journalist author of the article consulted numerous sources in compiling it. Therefore the dismissal of it as merely “anecdotal” is not justified as a matter of fact. That, however, is beside the point, as it is not Gwen Gale’s job to be making those judgements about reliable source publications.

Gwen Gale’s Misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s Policy on Verifiability

In using the term “single source” in her explanation of her summary deletion, she betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy. The notion of single sourcing does not form any part of this policy. This is a pseudo-journalistic notion. It is employed by journalists when writing stories. Wikipedia hinges on the concept of “reliable sources”. In general, as long as a source is reliable, it makes no difference whether the claim is also repeated elsewhere. This is a grave error in judgement on Gwen Gale’s part.

Gwen Gale’s Failure to Understand the Proper Scope of Wikipedia’s Policy on Verifiability

It is also clear that Gwen Gale does not understand the proper scope of Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. Gwen Gale made the comment that “even the single cited source says it’s unclear what happened”. Every claim made in the deleted text was verifiable, however. The text described an incident about which there was a dispute; varying accounts of exactly what had happened existed and the scope and nature of those varying accounts was significant. The existence of the incident and its essential nature was not in dispute, however. The deleted text properly represented the scope and nature of the uncertainty from a neutral point of view. Insofar as the deleted text made factual assertions, it only made factual assertions which were verifiably true, backed up by the article in the reliable source, and agreed by all concerned.

The policy on verifiability relates only to specific factual assertions made by the text. Whether those specific factual assertions happen to describe states of uncertainty or dispute is not relevant. The notion of verifiability should not be extended from a strict concern with the factual assertions made to the nature of the topic itself.

To illustrate, this policy on something being “unclear” having to be omitted from Wikipedia would be a massive constraint in relation to biographical material. To give a few examples : it would be impossible to mention the fact that some people believe OJ actually did kill his wife; it would be impossible to mention the claims that Clinton had affairs with Gennifer Flowers et al.

All of these possibilities are, to some extent, “unclear”. The controversies and uncertainties surrounding them are significant, however. Omitting any mention of them is not the right approach and not the approach advocated by Wikipedia policies. Properly and neutrally describing the controversial claims, and delimiting the scope of the uncertainty in each case, is the correct approach. It is also the approach which was followed in the deleted text.

Failing to understand the nature of Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy, and failing to understand its proper scope, are grave errors in judgement. If the misjudgement made in this instance were to be rigorously applied across all of Wikipedia’s content, a significant percentage of it would be eradicated.

Gwen Gale’s Failure to Understand the Biographies of Living Persons Policy Gwen Gale repeatedly cited the BLP in defence of her action, without specifying which clauses she believed had been violated. The BLP’s section “critisicism” reads as follows : Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability. Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The deleted text did not violate a single one of the guidelines quoted above. The section was written in a neutral tone and was fully backed up by a reliable source. Moreover, all of the assertions made by the text were completely undisputed. All parties quoted in the source article admitted that an altercation had taken place in the parking lot and that Jones had made complaints about those he had been having a dispute with, getting them into trouble with the authorities.

In conclusion, it should be overwhelmingly clear that Gwen Gale lacks both the humility and the judgement required to be an administrator on Wikipedia. She blunders into subject areas she does not understand, summarily deletes material which has been carefully refined by groups of people over extended periods, refuses to properly discuss her judgements before or afterwards, and betrays a grievous misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s core policies. A power-happy person with flawed judgement should not be wielding administrative powers.

Addendum :

As has been demonstrated, there are no grounds whatsoever for justifying the summary deletion on the basis of Verifiability or Biography of Living Persons policies. The only grounds on which the matter could even be seriously debated is Weight. It is not clear to what, if any, extent Gwen Gale is knowledgeable about the Alex Jones and the sub-culture of conspiracising of which he is a part. Anyone acquainted with this subculture knows that the Parking Lot Incident is deemed to be highly significant. Jones’ critics feel that some essential truths about Jones – his honesty, his tendency to fantasise conspiracies, and his possible unusually intimate connections with law enforcement authorities – are revealed by it. A simple Google search on “Alex Jones Parking Lot Incident” reveals this to be true.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=alex+jones+parking+lot+incident&meta=

There is extensive discussion of the incident on other websites, blogs and forums. Jones has achievement fame for his strongly anti-establishment opinions; his claims that the government and its various agencies, including law enforcement agencies, are responsible for all kinds of nefarious actions; and his defence of free speech. The fact that Jones himself has attempted to set the forces of officialdom upon his critics (as he himself admits in the cited source) in an attempt to suppress their free speech is clearly of direct relevance to his notability in that it reveals possibly grave hypocrisy.