Talk:Ganas

Controversy Revisited

So this is my rough draft for a new and improved Controversy section. For now I am leaving in wife-swapping until we decide what to do with it. I realize this paragraph reads rather clunkily, one statement after another, but without risking "synthesis" I don't know how to make it read smoother. So, there it is, now let's have it! Eroberer (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please revew the material involed as there was no consensus for much that inclusion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what rough draft means? You are being disruptive making major changes whenever you please. Eroberer (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressing RA's major changes

I think I can surmise your logic in including the shooting in the History section. However, don't you think it's a mistake to introduce this without some background about the culture and controversy of Ganas? As it stands readers are just plopped down in the middle of this without any context, and as much of what's controversial came out in the media as a result of the shooting, it seems to me they belong together.

Second, it's not allright to include only Mildred Gordon's definition of Feedback Learning. That's just as POV as omitting it completely. Before we had an objective reporter's view of it as well as Gordon's interpretation, and that's as it should be. If we only allow primary sources to define things then we might as well give up the encyclopedia and just let folks write their own promotional material on these pages. What's more, "designed to allow members to control their reactions to the world" is not what the source says about feedback learning, but about "killing one's buddha", which is such an obscure term it shouldn't be included without explanation, but what you've done is the dreaded SYNTHESIS you so often reprimand me for. "an intense brand of communication [21] designed to allow members to control their reactions to the world" does not explain how (in an objective viewpoint) communication would allow members to...and I don't think it's out of context for this reporter to say feedback learning looks to him like group therapy. Rather it's very helpful for understanding the context of the entire article.

I also don't think being tested for HIV explains what safe sex groups are, though I'm not surprised you're not happy with the source quotes, they are the only definition of safe sex groups I can find.

As an added note, the NYPost website is unreliable and the links are often not working. I think a working link outweighs the significance of link violations, don't you?

Can I hear some others' opinions on these points? Eroberer (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You forget WP:LINKVIO is a Policy with "Legal Considerations" also WP:RSN has found the Rick Ross site to alter the sources they host to conform to the're POV. When quotes are the entire >60 % of section that again raises issues. Also I still used the source merely presented the information NPOV fashion. We agreed above the quoting of Milford's lack of degree and what thier website said was WP:SYNTH. I shall be rmeoving that again shortly The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What issues does quotes raise? You didn't use the source to define Feedback Learning which is why it's there. It's still POV if you only use Gordon's primary source definition. You are not answering my points but ignoring them. Eroberer (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring the allegation of practicing therapy but removing unlicensed, I assume that is your objection to it. Technically only you and WikiDao agreed that quoting of Mildred's lack of degree and what thier website said was WP:SYNTH, and I still think there should be some explanation of why people think therapy is being practiced there if, as they claim, it is not! Tell me how to write it without it being WP:SYNTH since you are so experienced. Actually, I'd be happy to just include Mildred's lack of degree without quoting their disclaimer, but I thought the idea was to present both sides! You seem to only want to present theirs.

Also I have included the correct citation this time. Eroberer (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the Jonah Lamb quote on Feedback Learning was good. It's unusual enough and central enough to Ganas that it's worth a longer discussion (and, I think, even a lengthy quote). The "Gordon's own literature" sentence currently in there doesn't have a citation, could whoever put that in please fix it? Schneck (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Schneck on Lamb quote, it's an objective observers viewpoint and without it we're stuck with Gordon's own definition. Re: Gordon's literature source - I have a source but not copywrite permission. I think WP says a citation is not necessary for info that's well known/established, unless it is challenged, are you (Schneck)challenging it, or do you find it contentious? Eroberer (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine nothing about Feedback Learning should be considered well-known. Now, there's nothing wrong with citing copyrighted work (most citations are). But is the source not publicly available? If it's not something that readers or other editors could reasonably find, I think it's better to leave it out, especially since we already have a quote from Gordon on FL from a reliable and publicly available source. Schneck (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No it's not publicly available, so I must reluctantly agree. I returned Lamb's view of Feedback Learning to the Culture section in shortened form. It's only fair to include his objective, independent observation and not just rely on Gordon's own definition. Eroberer (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I made several changes, especially to Controversy. I'll mention the ones here in Talk that I guess are most likely to be disputed:

• Too contentious to say "FL looks like invasive group therapy" in WP's voice; returned this to quote instead. (This lengthens that Jonah Owen Lamb quote, which, personally, I think is appropriate.)
• I don't think the source for an ex-member claiming they practice therapy supports that. Replaced with the exact quote (that they practice mind-control)
• The "crackpot" quote specifically states one person from Ganas saying that; not clear that this represents the views of the collective
• The defense attorney suggested FL drove people insane during the trial, but the justice stopped him from pursuing that line of questioning. That's not "the shooting prompted questions that FL might drive people insane". I took the whole bit out, but if necessary, it could go back in if it puts it in the context of the trial.
• Reminding readers GROW was therapy school, right next to an accusation that Ganas practices therapy, is WP:SYNTH. I deleted this. (Beyond the WP:SYNTH, I'm confident GROW, which is not Ganas, doesn't belong here again, especially given we have questioned whether it even belongs in History.) Schneck (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree - with Schneck changes for the most part, though I'm still not satisfied with Controversy section. Isn't it interesting that Twin Oaks Criticism section shows that Twin Oaks has at least enough integrity to acknowledge their own problems, while Ganas not only deny that any problems exist, but also seeks to stop people from talking about them.

I'd like WikiDao to weigh in on Schneck changes. Eroberer (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been sort of busy elsewhere lately, but should get a chance to look in on how things have been coming along here soon (later today, or even tomorrow if it is going to require a lot of attention). Regards, WikiDao ☯ 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad to see that agreement. That's a good sign. And I think, at this point, it would really be best if those most interested in and familiar with this material would be able to work together civilly to arrive at a reasonable and mutually acceptable compromise about what should and should not be in the article. I am not too familiar with this material, so I can really only comment usefully about whether something specifically violates a WP policy or not in my view. I think both of you, Eroberer and Schneck, have a pretty good sense of what those policies are and how they apply here at this point. So, I'd like to try to step back again and let you two hash things out for awhile. You're both doing fine, you're making progress with the article, and I think there is a sufficiently workable amount of good-faith on both sides at this point too. If it bogs down completely again or gets heated and disputational, I'll try to help out with that. Otherwise: have at it, and happy editing! :) WikiDao ☯ 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you

This article, though not perfect, is looking pretty good! I am thankful for your work. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Has the controversy been resolved. I ask as the artcile is a candidate for a GAN quick-fail with that tag outstanding. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I still question the inclusion of the pre-Ganas GROW story in this article. Also I think the amount of financial details included may be inappropriate. However, I'm happy for those details to be worked out in the future by the normal editing process, and would not object to the removal of the dispute tag at this time. Schneck (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ganas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, the article seems stable as it hasn't been edited (apart from one minor edit) since January. Looking at the talkpage, however, shows a long history of disputes on the content of the article, right up to the point when editing on the article seems, for some reason, to have ceased. Much of the recent(ish) editing has been done by two or three editors who, looking at the talkpage discussions, have strong points of view on the subject, so perhaps inevitably, there is still some question over neutrality. The neutrality tag was brought up recently on the talkpage and the one editor who responded does not seem happy with the current content included, questioning the appropriateness of some of it. Another editor heavily involved in disputes has not been active since January. It's really hard to tell to what extent disputes have been resolved, if they have at all. I'm not sure exactly why the neutrality tag was put on the article, but I agree that the article does not quite meet the standard of WP:NPOV at the moment. Some sentences actually seem to describe the group in slightly promotional tones (probably due to the close paraphrasing of the group's website, more on that below), and there seems to be undue weight on rumours and allegations, including some that seem to be unrelated to Ganas. I'd say quite a bit of work needs to be done on the content, and disputes need to be resolved, rather than just allowed to die away quietly, before this can meet the [WP:WIAGA|good article criteria]]. I have no idea if the main editors of the article consider it to be GA-standard yet as the nomination seems to have been made purely as a response to a random compliment on the talkpage. I will go through the article and point out some other ways to improve the article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some issues listed below, would benefit from a copyedit or at least a proofread

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some issues with verifiability, WP:SYNTH

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seem to be some gaps in the information, undue weight on possibly unrelated matters.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is disputed, some comments below

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Have been content disputes which don't seem to be resolved

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No problems with images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose/manual of style issues

• There are numerous minor issues regarding the manual of style, some of which I have corrected. If and when the article gets nearer a "finished" state regarding the content, it would benefit from a copyedit from someone who is uninvolved, and is more familiar with the MOS.

Lead

• This is not a GA issue, but generally developed articles don't have so many citations in the lead. Remember that per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the main points of the article, so there shouldn't be anything there (with rare exceptions) that isn't included, and preferably expanded on, later on. Inline citations should accompany the facts when they appear in the main body of the article, meaning that the lead can be left cite-free which is easier to read. (There are some exceptions; direct quotes, for example).
• "Ganas is an urban experiment committed to exploring applications of Feedback Learning" - this is close paraphrasing of the source (the Ganas website), more care needs to be taken to change the wording to avoid copyright infringement. Note that although WP:PARAPHRASE is just an essay, it has been written to help editors avoid violating the copyright policy.
• "Participation in the group process is obligatory in some situations." - what situations would those be? This is not explained later in the article
• "10–12", "60 to 70" (in the same sentence), style needs to be more consistent
• Make sure the lead summarises the main points of the article, and doesn't just act as an introduction. There is a (relatively) large section on finance which is not mentioned in the lead.

History

• I realise this has been the subject of some dispute, but it's unclear why there is this paragraph on GROW. I'm not saying that group shouldn't be mentioned, but it's not at all clear why it is, other than to drag up some murky history on the founder. Nothing in that paragraph is directly relevant to Ganas (other than the implication that if her first group was fraudulent, her next group must be too). If this is kept in, it also needs to be a bit clearer whether or not GROW was actually convicted of anything. Investigations are mentioned, but no convictions. "that same year, a general investigation into unregulated mental therapy in New York..." - is this directly related (in sources) to the GROW investigations? Or is it just WP:SYNTH? Be careful also of WP:UNDUE
• "core group" or "core-group"? Be consistent.
• A brief explanation of biofeedback would be helpful
• Foundation for Feedback Learning is a circular link, so isn't helpful to readers
• "May of 2006" → just "May 2006"
• This shooting incident, although the reason that the group made headlines, should probably be moved further down. It doesn't flow well at present, having a bit of history, a bit about the shared ownership of houses, this guy got shot in 2006, and then you actually start telling us about the group's culture/activities

Culture

• The discussion of Feedback Learning seems to mainly consist of two lengthy quotes. I appreciate that they have both been included to show two opposing viewpoints, but the facts should be summarised more, rather than just quoting.

Business and Financial Info

• subheadings should be in sentence case and use full words (ie. not "info")
• Everything Goes does not need to be in quotation marks
• "Full time work is 35 hours a week, and wages cover all community expenses plus a $300/mo stipend. Profit sharing opportunities may be available to some members." - full time work for whom? All of the group members? These two sentences seem a bit randomly stuck in, almost like a job advert... then again, it has been too-closely paraphrased from the website.
• Spell out or wikilink (or both) IRS - remember not all Wikipedia readers are American.
• Why does this section refer to FFL, as if that is the current name of the group? Hasn't it been Ganas since the early 90s?

Controversy & Criticism

• This has been the subject of dispute, and to me, it seems somewhat less-than-neutral. What form have these "serious allegations" taken? Have they been made in court? Have investigations been made? Have accusations been made via the press? it's all a little vague.
• Not sure why the public perception of the group as a "commune" is included as "controversy" or "criticism".
• Really not sure about the "wife swapping" sentence. Firstly, it says "the media has characterized" - but this is supported by one citation to one article in one newspaper - is this one article representing the whole of "the media"? Secondly, I would only consider it really notable to mention this if the fact itself has been reported on. Eg. if there was an article in (for example) the Washington post which described the group in general terms and went on to say "the group has been characterized by the media as indulging in "wife-swapping"", then it might be worth mentioning. I don't see the point of including a link that goes to swinging either - that's clearly not adding anything to this article.

References

• Dates shouldn't be linked
• Newspaper titles should be in italics
• Dates should be consistently formatted (not a GA requirement)

External links

• Including a link to a website on the GROW controversy seems to be putting undue weight onto GROW

Verifiability/referencing

• There is a {{citation needed}} template
• There is no newspaper called London Sunday Times
• More info needs to be included in many references to enable readers to properly verify information
• Online only sources need retrieval dates added

Broad in coverage?

• Is there no information on the other five founding members?
• No info on why it's called Ganas? I know this has been discussed, but I saw it mentioned in one of the sources, and from the talkpage discussion, I gather that the group has made it known why it chose that name. I'm sure some readers would be interested to know.
• I think we could use some more info on the day to day activities of the members. For example, at least one of the secondary sources mentions some of the group's activities in the neighbourhood they live in.
• Any particular reason Mildred Gordon left the group?

Once any issues have been resolved, I'd recommend taking the article to peer review before another GA nomination. --BelovedFreak 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

Most of this has been covered extensively in archived discussions, Marelstrom pls read. Ganas website says residents agree to abide by rules, one of which is non-negotiable negativity. Obligatory participation is simpler way of saying same, we strive to avoid directly quoting primary sources unless absolutely necessary, this is not an advertisement. Summary should consist of the main topics in article, ergo shooting belongs in summary. Recycling, store details, work arrangements already mentioned in body and trivial, again not an advertisement. No independent reference for core value or co-founders, only for original founder and central figure Gordon whose history is highly relevant. Again, all this covered in previous discussions, pls familiarize yourself and participate here if you make changes. Eroberer (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "Recycling, store details, work arrangements already mentioned in body and trivial, again not an advertisement." Actually, I wrote it not because I want to advertise the community, but because it is a neutral way of describing Ganas. --Marelstrom (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO Ganas residents, which Marelstrom (talk) obviously is, should not be involved with this article at all, as they seem unable to grasp the WP notion of what constitutes neutrality. Neutral does not mean eliminate all controversy and let the subject define themself. Any description of Ganas should be from objective source not their own literature. Left note on your talk page. Eroberer (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not a Ganas resident. You believe that my changes are not neutral, but I believe they are. I would not mind third party intervention, if you are not willing to discuss the specifics. --Marelstrom (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yer IP 96.250.214.152 is from Staten Island, looks pretty suspicious to me. Anyway I HAVE discussed the specifics, seems you are not willing to address my points, specically your misunderstanding of neutrality and how it relates to Wikepedia policy IN PARTICULAR. Typical. Eroberer (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality on what points? --Marelstrom (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)