User talk:Digitalican

/Archive 10-6-2012

Note

You are a WP:SPA Christian Scientist editor who edits Christian Scientist related articles only (despite your disclaimer that you wish to stay away from articles that you have too much knowledge of). You have removed material from the lead which reflects the material in the article (as expected by the manual of style WP:LEAD), but which doesn't put Christian Science in a positive light. And you accuse me of advocacy? I suggest reflecting on that. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, can you highlight these two things "I understand the CS point of view but am not an advocate for it or against it", and "I try to stay away from contributing to articles about which I know nothing or, worse, know enough to have a specific point of view. It's important here to be aware of your own blind spots." You mentioned you still support this statement, can you explain how it doesn't contradict the other statement you made. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Which other statement? I haven't changed anything of substance, only the (undocumented) assertion that Christian Science has been (generally) classified as a pseudoscience and some really awkward wording. I actually do not disagree with many of your edits and have left them alone. The article is inaccessible due to language and generally bad. That doesn't mean that all your edits are pristine, OK? Digitalican (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your statement "I understand the CS point of view but am not an advocate for it or against it", appears to contradict your other statement from your user page about when you "know enough to have a specific point of view". IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually try to be neutral about Christian Science practice. I suspect you don't believe that, but I am. I got into this because I thought it ought not to be misrepresented by people with points of view. In my memory I have redacted both proponents and opponents of Christian Science (and have the scorch marks to prove it from both sides.) To use one of your scientific analogies -- that I understand how nuclear fission works does not mean I am in favor of nuclear warfare. Digitalican (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully believe that you try to be neutral. I think that there may be a misunderstanding of what neutral is. Neutrality means we discuss viewpoints only in their prominence in the reliable secondary sources. If 99.9% of sources say X, 0.1% say Y, we say X in wikipedias voice. If medical controversies are most prevalent in Christian Science, we devote more article space to that, than say theology (you mentioned few reliable sources exist) , we decrease the weight there. If most sources are critical of some aspect of Christian Science, we reflect that in the article, if the sources are positive of some aspect , we reflect that in the article. To be neutral you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and understand what that means. In general you disregard your previous positions/convictions on a topic and just look for the sources; judge them for reliability, judge them for WP:WEIGHT by looking at the prevalence, and then essentially parrot what they say with little original input of your own beyond paraphrasing them in your own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You also will have to be that I am not trying to be contentious. I really do believe that most of your edits to Christian Science are good, making the article more accessible to people who want to learn what Christian Science is. My problem with your point of view (and it is a point of view) is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much has been written (inaccurately by the way) about Christian Science's view and use of medicine because that is a contentious point. That 99% is critical does not mean that 99% is accurate. By anecdote I was, for example, vaccinated against smallpox at age 7 because it was the law and Christian Science does not go against the law, at least by church edict. Certainly there are social pressures that cause individual Christian Scientists to do weird things, but it's by no means universal and by no means church edict. This is where the expertise I was talking about comes in.

My view of Wikipedia is like my view of the Encyclopedia Britannica as I grew up. It was a place I went to find out about things, not to find out about things and all the argumentation that surrounded them. We all know full well that there's lots of Goofy stuff in the world, like Christian Science and like Astrology, but having to deal with the argumentation makes a resource less useful in understanding the principles. Does that make any sense? Sometimes the truth gets in the way of information. :) My take as an editor here is not to take a position, but to try to emphasize clarity and keep the worst of the advocacy at bay. That's so with The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Carrboro and even Froggy the Gremlin as well as Christian Science. Digitalican (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources do distinguish that Christian Scientists aren't breaking the law by not vaccinating, and the reliable sources will most likely clarify any issue of it being social pressures. Wikipedia can't correct where 99% of the most reliable sources are incorrect; it's not our place to do that, we don't publish original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So if I read what you're saying correctly that majority rule rather than accuracy or correctness is the determiner of "truth" on Wikipedia -- that what reliable sources "say" (though they may or may not be be wrong) is more useful that the documentable fact? It's sad to see a situation where our truths are determined by majority rule and certainly makes an encyclopedia much less useful than it might otherwise be. Digitalican (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Essentially we aim for truth by working only with the reliable sources (particularly reliable secondary sources), and not making or adding our own deductions about what the truth is. So yes, majority rule; we aren't here to add do original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in this essay. For example, "If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification." That is how Wikipedia works - it reflects the current state of knowledge, and we determine what that is using reliable sources. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the essay reference. I had read it before and really, at this point, understand full well how Wikipedia works. I also understand full well what is required of me if I am to modify the position taken by the page the Christian Science is universally considered a pseudo-science. Should I manage that (and it's possible that I can at this point after spending part of the day in the University Libarary) I feel doubtful that it will be taken seriously. Somehow, in this dispute, I became one of the 'bad guys' and the whacko fringe -- an SPA whose sole purpose in life was to push an agenda.

As I said on my (now expunged) comments on the Christian Science talk page it's probably safer and saner that I expend my efforts where they are more readily welcome and respected. Does that mean I'm going to pick up my ball and go home? No. It simply means that I am going to avoid encountering the kind of intellectual jackboot thuggery I have dealt with over the past few days. I got into this not to push an agenda about Christian Science, but simply because Christian Science was something I knew a bit about, whose language and principles I understood both of which gave me a footing to hold some of the vandals at bay. I think a close look at my edit record will indicate that. I take the same approach with any of the subjects I know something about.

Am I unhappy because I didn't get my way? No. I am unhappy because my views were taken derisively and not at all seriously. I am unhappy because the three of you waved your rulebooks in my face and completely disregarded what I was trying to say -- even though even I might not have been sure it's right. The damage has been done. I'm highly disinclined to put myself in a position where I would have to go through this again -- right or wrong. Digitalican (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's on those same links we gave you that you can check and ask for advice from other editors on the respective talkpages and noticeboards. You can show diffs and ask us if our interpretations are correct. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would I ask you? The royal you has shown no indication that there is any introspection or even desire for discussion and introspection on whether your interpretations are correct. At this point all I feel I can expect from you is disrespect and derision. I have had no indication I should expect anything else. You and your colleagues have, in my view, failed to treat me as a person rather than just a screen name. I would be agreeable if I had any evidence that a dialog was possible. The whole business just makes me more sad than angry. It's symptomatic of our times (at least in the U.S. if not in Ireland.) I'm sorry for the snarky comment about the RFC but at some point my frustration with this whole experience just took over. Digitalican 13:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

By our I was referring to my, and Dominus (another experienced editor) who added his opinion. You can easily ask at other venues whether the interpretations are correct. Show a diff, ask if it's a correct interpretation. I am fully available for any discussion, and I have engaged in discussions on the talk page. The discussions are limited to centring around policy based and guideline based arguments, if another editor has reasoning based on his personal interpretation then this can't really be considered in discussion if it's to counter a reliable secondary source. A discussion of something is going to involve invoking policies and guidelines, and assumes familiarity with them. Ask at FTN as well, the editors there give good feedback to questions, or other noticeboards like RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I understood who you meant by our. Dominus Vobisdu (I don't know where Dominus is either :) ) was not exactly a help nor was Arc de Ceil. Both, as I saw it, were a bit high-handed. While at this point calmer, I'm very shy of asking help right now or negotiating with conflicting interpretations. That you flew directly in the face of the 5th pillar of Wikipedia (which someone very nicely put on my home page when I created a login) was both frustrating and confusing. (I'm not playing rulebook here nor will I ever, I'm just telling you what was frustrating.) It suggests that the rules and policies most of us read (or think we read) aren't the rules in general use. It suggests that, to paraphrase Orwell, some editors are more equal than others.

Too, there has been enough heat in this situation that I'm not willing to 'go to papa if I can't have my way with mama' (so to speak.) Trying, even inadertantly, to split editors into groups is not being a good citizen. Though it isn't always possible, as I've seen, I've always tried to work through consensus and compromise, not the blacks and whites of conflict and correctness.

I do appreciate your efforts to come back to this after the incident and I appreciate your trying to be clear. I'm just not sure my concerns can be addressed within the culture of Wikipedia. How, in the Wikipedia universe, do we build consensus? Democracy tends to be a system that builds and rigidifies warring camps, which really aren't what you (or we or anyone) want here. I understand the logic behind the democratization of knowledge, but am not sure it's an effective approach. I'm not sure it allows for the dissemination of truth. (One of my favorite quotes is "That's not the truth, that's just a fact.") I know, it's not the job of Wikipedia to discern truth. That almost, to me, defines irony.

Thanks, Digitalican 00:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean. You don't cite IAR as a real for doing something, you provide very good exceptional reasons; that hasn't happened. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you about the substance of our disagreement. I'm trying to explain to you how and why I feel you condescended to me, engendered my mistrust and thus failed to enlist my cooperation. (I'm beginning to suspect that's something you don't care about, which is fine.) There's no reason to run for the cover of Wikipedia Rules and Policies. As I said in my (now expunged) rant the Christian Science ship has sailed and I'm not going to waste any more effort on it. If you've taken on the rewrite of Christian Science, Church of Christ, Scientist, Mary Baker Eddy and a number of other pages that are all of a piece as your own (not that I worked that hard on them) you've a long row to hoe ahead of you. I see it profitless to bother you about it in any way. Digitalican 14:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent Christian Science Edits

Hi Digitalican, I agree with all of your latest observations added to my talk page. Many thanks for the contact and thoughts. Of interest is a feel I have about one of the editors, who is a PhD student. Quite a common thing with postgraduate students is a desire to grasp a simple, single set of rules and to pursue them with almost Pharisaic zeal. Happily, they usually grow out of it, and then settle down to becoming fine men and women with a more balanced view of life. I am glad that you have noticed my recent efforts to get editors to focus on what they are saying, since that is exactly what I want to achieve. Let’s see how things unfold, and do stay in touch. Best regards, Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC).

Please don't refer to me in such a dismissive and patronising way. I have shown you the places you can ask for other opinions about other issues, principally WP:FTN, WP:RSN and WP:NORN IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, you are hardly the pot to be calling the kettle black. I would ask that you go back over all you have written to me/us and see if it is not often patronizing, condescending, derisive and sometimes just plain rude.

Ok. I've gotten that out of my system.

I have read (and *gasp* actually understand and for the most part agree with) the Wikipedia pages I have repeatedly been pointed to. The rules are clear. Rather than engage in some kind of dispute process, however, I (I speak only for myself) have been trying to engage and reason with you. That is neither dismissive nor patronizing. Failing that, I simply take a wait-and-see attitude about what you're creating and will work from there, OK? Digitalican 14:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

My POV with respect to Christian Science

(I add this to my talk page as it's not appropriate for my User page but I want to provide this information to those interested.)

I am not a Christian Scientist. I was raised in the church, but left the it over fifty years ago. These days I only attend church with my father when I visit out of respect for him. People who have spoken with me in real life about it know that I refer to it as "institutionalized denial" (but not derisively.) As a Gnostic I honor those parts of my Christian Science upbringing that have helped in developing my current world view. Those parts do not involve medicine, healing or any of the more contentious parts of Christian Science, but do involve the notion of an omnipresent impersonal deity, the unreality of evil per se (though ask me about the unreality of chaos sometime) and the basic notion of a benign but impersonal universe.

My upbringing, however, does allow me to understand the religion. I speak "Christian Science," as it were. This is important in that Christian Scientists often use the language of Christianity in radically different ways than mainstream christians. I also know how Christian Science works, or at least how it is supposed to work. That I understand its internals does not make me an advocate for it any more than knowing how a rotary engine works makes me an advocate for rotary engines.

The focus of the current Wikipedia edits on the Christian Science page are almost entirely on the relationship of Christian Science to medicine, sickness and public health. Those, certainly, are the most controversial parts of Christian Science, comprise a great deal of its literature, and very much need to be outlined and critiqued. There is, however, more to Christian Science (and by more I am not necessarily implying deeper and better.) Christian Science, like most religions, encompasses a larger world view which has little to do with medicine or illness or healing. In an encyclopaedic sense that world view deserves explanation (but not necessarily promotion.) That seems to me what is getting lost in the current discussion. My objective has been to make sure that world view is explained and not lost in the controversial noise or obfuscated by pejorative words. Is explanation the same as promotion? I get no consensus from my fellow editors.

The secondary sources are problematic, but not for Christian Science in relation to medicine -- that is, after all, both its most notable feature and controversial aspect. Many authors write about that and or are willing to tackle it. It is, as it were, the "low hanging fruit." Fewer outside the church itself are willing to discuss the theological views of Christian Science. Walter Martin in "The Kingdom of the Cults" actually does and calls it a "gnostic heresy" which I, were I a Christian Scientist, would take as sort of a compliment. At least he's bothered to try to understand it.

Digitalican (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Sources for Christian Science

IRWolfie- has decided to close a discussion on sources for the Christian Science article that he feels is going nowhere and has thus archived it. I don't think the discussion is closed at all and would like to continue it. At least one admin has called it "a lively discussion" and I agree. I object strongly to what I see as assumptions of bad faith on the part of any of the editors. I see this as a discussion about improving the Christian Science page and improving the quality of sources. The discussion begins here --> User_talk:IRWolfie-/Archive_5#Your_Clean-up_of_the_Christian_Science_Article

Text added to my archives will be reverted. I find your reaction peculiar. We aren't discussing specific text. There is no reason why I need to have any discussion on my page, I was merely trying to engage you and it was out of politeness that I allowed it to go off topic for a bit. I am not required to talk to you on my talk page, and it appears you are trying to subject me to a conversation whether I want it or not. In general, I'm not here on wikipedia for philosophical, religious or other debates. If a conversation starts to move far enough away from wikipedia in general, I don't wish to be a part of it. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct! Yipes! Sorry, I should have included in the note above, that any subsequent discussion go here and not on your talk page. My sincere apologies.

Peculiar? How so? I don't think the discussion is closed -- which is as much my privilege as it is yours to close it (or not respond to any further discussion) -- and wanted to provide a place that did not corrupt your talk pages to continue it. If there's a better way to do this I'm certainly willing to be enlightened. Again, my mistake for having said something that implied the discussion should be continued on your archive page. I mostly wanted the link to the discussion to be clear and more readily available. As for being polite, it was Michael J. Mullany you were in the primary discussion. I found it helpful but I didn't think you needed to be polite with me.Digitalican (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind others discussing whatever wikipedia related issues they wish to, on their user talkpages. I just don't wish it to continue specifically on my user pages. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand entirely. That was exactly my intention. Again, apologies for my admission. Digitalican (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

On topic

Your section on the Christian Science talkpage was not about editing the article except in the most loose sense. Read WP:NOT#FORUM. We are here to edit articles. Look at other talk page, particularly those about controversial subjects with active talk pages, you will see the same thing often, look for the words "forum" or "not a forum", for example here: Talk:Homeopathy. I don't aim to be harsh, but this isn't what talk pages are for. Also read History of science before saying when you believe modern science began. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

See WP:PARAPHRASE about paraphrasing. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I can put it in quotes if you like. In general (from my experience as both teacher and student) a direct quote is best but an attributed sentence fragment even outside of quote is permissable. A paraphrase can become interpretation, which I believe the discinclusion of Columbus makes it in this case. Digitalican (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask at WP:NORN if you think what I have done is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a fuzzy border between OR and misinterpretation or disagreements in interpretation. OR is often used as a pejorative term on Wikipedia and I'm not convinced the border to it has been crossed. Nor am I convinced that going beyond the various talk pages is, for now, needed. I find it generally destructive to trying the achieve consensus and in some sense unwikipedian. I certainly thought that what I had done was within the guidelines of WP:PARAPHRASE but feel that Michael J. Mullany has come up with a workable compromise. Digitalican (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously, you are just copying what they've said. You need to put some thought into getting the same points across but in a different way. There's a good reason I'm not saying the exact same thing as the source, because it would be plagiarism. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)