Talk:Ganas

Article locked due to edit warring

The two main contributors to this article both want the same thing - a balanced and accurate article on Ganas. However, as they are locked in an ongoing edit dispute despite a warning, I have locked the article from editing for one week to allow time to cool down. This talkpage will remain open, and the option is there for the main contributors to work together on a solution, though I would suggest a complete break for the week, and I will come back in a week's time to oversee a discussion as to the best way forward. I will, though, echo BelovedFreak's comments, that this is not a topic I have much interest in, nor is it a significant topic, so I do not wish to spend a lot of time working on it. I am prepared to give some of my time to help work toward a solution, but if the main contributors are not willing to co-operate in any way, or prove difficult, or this becomes tiresome and messy, then I will withdraw. Is that understood? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Before you withdraw will you refer the matter to appropriate venue for resolution? I am not getting much response from attempts at dispute resolution, I suspect because most share your and BelovedFreak's sentiments. Would you be able to get other editors involved? From what I have seen Marelstrom rejects any participation from me on principle. Eroberer (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Another vote for more editors! The kind that write paragraphs. --Marelstrom (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of dispute resolution. I don't do much these days because it's very time-consuming; however, I am prepared to help out on this as long as progress is being made. As for venues - this talkpage is the most appropriate. Stuff to bear in mind:

1) It is very common to get heated during Wikipedia content disputes. That is the reason for the break, to give you both a chance to cool down. When we start the discussions on the 9th I want you both to concentrate on the article, and the problems with the article. It is taken as read, that you are both frustrated with each other at the moment and have a lot of built up resentment, but it doesn't help me when you make personal comments - that simply diverts attention from the real issues. I understand the frustrations you are going through (most of us do experience them when editing on Wikipedia!), and my strategy is to type out all the angry personal remarks, then - before pressing Save - I go through what I have written and edit it - cutting out the personal remarks and adjusting the tone so that it is as neutral as possible.

2) I may propose solutions that one or other of you are not happy with. I will listen carefully to objections, but only if there are reasons and explanations. My view is that "I don't like that" is purely an emotional response and carries no weight. Logical discussion and evidence will be treated with respect and considered carefully.

3) I may at times refer to policies, guidelines and Wikipedia essays. Policies have to be followed, guidelines carry a lot of consensus, so there needs to be a well argued rationale for going against guidelines, and essays are advisory and helpful. Policies, etc, are open to interpretation - if necessary I will indicate where I feel the policy is clear, and where it might be open to a different interpretation.

4) I will be expecting a short, clear and helpful explanation from each of you as to what you feel is wrong with the article, and the direction you feel the article should be going in. In this explanation I do not want any mention of the other person, their behaviour or attitude, or any editing problems. It is purely the content of the article that I am interested in.

I will see you on the 9th. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vacation SilkTork. Lately the problem seems to be mostly in the summary and there needs to be an objective decision about what belongs there. I think the summary should reflect the contents of the article, in this case perhaps one sentence representing each of the four sections: history, culture, business and controversy. This was fairly well accomplished in the March 21 version, though it could still use work; specifically BelovedFreak's comment about the shooting appearing in the history section, which I agree is awkward. If the shooting were to appear in the controversy section that would solve several problems, not only in the summary but in the flow of the article as a whole.

The details about how many people started the group, how many it contains now, what the work arrangements are, details about their businesses are all included in the body of the article; don't think they all belong in the summary. They are not the major points of the article, and are somewhat promotional. There seems to be some opinion that because these things appear more "neutral" they provide a better summary; I disagree. There is also much misunderstanding about what neutrality means; I think it means all viewpoints are represented, not anything that could be construed as critical is eliminated.

That's my position in a nutshell, trying to keep it short! Eroberer (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. That is clear and sensible. By the summary I assume you mean the lead. The guidance on the lead section is - WP:Lead, and it does advise, as you say, that the lead should "reflect the contents of the article".

I look forward to hearing from Marelstrom. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have just noticed that Marelstrom has been blocked. A new account, User:Flyswatting, has been created, and has edited this talkpage twice, though I have removed the comments as they are unhelpful personal attacks. It is possible that Flyswatting is Marelstrom. I have left a warning on Flyswatting's talkpage, and if they persist in making personal attacks, then that account will also be blocked. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is written as if someone chose to find as many negative references as they could about Ganas, and sounds like hate propaganda. In particular about certain living persons Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. If you would like to read an article that doesn't focus on negative connotations, try this one: http://brooklynrail.org/2006/05/streets/utopia-has-a-web-site#bio --Flyswatting (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if Marelstrom would get themself unblocked or if Flyswatting would state their case so we can get on with it. The Brooklyn Rail piece is referenced several times in the article. It is one of the few (only?) third party descriptions of feedback learning and so is very valuable. Eroberer (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not allowed to state my case. Instead, I'll talk about this:

Facts are strategically pulled from the Brooklyn Rail to represent Ganas in a negative tone. In fact, facts are pulled selectively from all the articles for that purpose, except in the lead and the first paragraph of the history section, as it currently stands. --Flyswatting (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have looked at the March 21 version and agree that it provides a clearer and fuller overview than the present version. What objections would Flyswatting have to us using that version as a starting point?
• Could Flyswatting explain a bit more about the negative facts being pulled selectively from Brooklyn Rail and other sources. What I would like to see in response to this question is: a) The negative facts in question, b) Why these facts are "selective", and c) What balancing facts there are. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 19:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, are you interested in removing the tag that reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010)"

That does not come about by leaving the article in it's previous state. The article needs to be rewritten from scratch. You are not realizing that the article has been the work of mostly a single editor. It is not a truly cooperative effort. That is my case I am presenting. I am willing to help in the rebuild, but what you ask is for me to rewrite the whole thing, which I don't think is appropriate. If you find the interest, ask yourself what an encyclopedic description of an intentional community would be like, and write a rough draft. I think it would have a section describing the counter-culture details found in sensationalistic articles, but it would not be the main focus of the article. --Flyswatting (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Flyswatting, you really need to stop making general complaints and move to specifics. These POV disputes tend to be difficult at the best of times, but are made impossible if one party simply complains without stating their case. Please understand that I have very clearly got the message that you are not happy with the article, and that you think the article is biased, but what I am looking for is specific evidence of that bias, and your suggestions of how to move forward. I am interested in helping you, and I have allowed your account to remain active in order to hear your side of things. Please take advantage of my patience, but don't abuse it. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, Ganas is a housing cooperative, and made up of individual members, who may or may not be involved in certain activities. However, the Wikipedia article is focused around two members who don't live at Ganas anymore. Until Campoftheamericas and Marelstrom added to the lead and the first paragraph in the history section, no one would have known that there are other co-founders besides Mildred and Jeff. So you may ask: "Why is that?". The answer is, that the article has been written mostly by a single editor. That is my case, and it doesn't help that you complain about the nature of my case. The article could be improved by providing facts about Ganas as a whole, and less about two individual members who no longer live at Ganas.

Also, I'm sure you do not need to be reminded of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, where it says: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." --96.250.214.152 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I must ask for specifics. You say you have BLP concerns, but I am not clear why you have these concerns. Could you point to the statements in the article that are giving you cause for concern. I see there is a citation needed tag next to the statement that Johnson unsuccessfully sued the group. Is that it? You also comment that the article has a focus on two people. If the two people are notable, and the others are not, that would be normal. I am assuming the two people are Jeff Gross, who was shot, and Mildred Gordon who appears from the article to be the main founder of the group, and the provider of the core philosophy. Three other people are mentioned by name in the history section, but I would question why they are named. They do not appear to be mentioned again in the article, and are not themselves notable. The sources linking them to the group are meetup.com and zegg-forum.org. Are these sources WP:RELIABLE?

I note that a particular difference between the current lead, and the one that Eroberer linked to, is the shooting, which isn't mentioned in the lead at the moment. The shooting is covered in two paragraphs in the main body, amounting to approx 20% of the article, so should be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead. If your concern is that the article covers the shooting, then it would be more than appropriate that the shooting is covered, and covered fairly prominently, especially in the lead, as that incident has acquired notability outside of the US, and would be the main point of interest for a reader. Indeed, the only sources which give notability to this article appear to be the New York Times and Sunday Times who cover the shooting. The shooting is what gives this commune its notability, and so the shooting should appear not just in the lead, but in the opening sentence, per WP:BEGINNING: "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." If the commune is notable for some other reason which can be supported by reliable sources, that should be provided, so we can discuss how best to organise the lead. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the media only chooses to cover a topic such as Ganas when it has sensationalistic value. I you do not agree with this statement, then we are not going to arrive at a strong agreement. The shooting, the fraud investigations, the controversy and criticism section are all sensational news. They do not attempt to cover Ganas as-a-historian-would-in-a-documentary. If the only facts available are sensationalistic, then I agree with you that Ganas is not notable, and the Wikipedia article may be deleted. Alternatively, you could use the non-sensational non-subjective facts presented in the news to write a historical observation about Ganas, including an overview of why Ganas got into the news.

From BLP: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." I don't think Jeff and Mildred are "public figures". I don't think they would have come out in so many articles had they not lived in a commune, which has instant sensationalistic appeal for newspapers. If the shooting is all that is notable, then perhaps you want a small article titled "The shooting at Ganas", with not too much detail, rather than an article about Ganas. Please expand on the ideas of notability and BLP so I better understand Wikipedia's position as they apply to Ganas. --Flyswatting (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The media has covered Ganas before the shooting, ie the Brooklyn Rail piece, Big Love on Staten Island, NYTimes articles. Ganas, including Gordon and Gross were all willing participants in that coverage and were willing to be "public figures" to that extent. Unfortunately we can not pick and choose when we do and do not want to be public figures. And we can not control what the media says about us, though god knows we try. Probably the only thing Ganas would be noted for outside of the shooting is their feedback learning group process, the central "philosophy" and reason for existence. In keeping with SilkTork's comments above, I think that feedback learning and the shooting should be the focus of the article and represented in the lead. I would also agree that there is really nothing written about the other founders, although I think it is clear that the original core group was more than Gross and Gordon. I really don't understand why it's an issue, but a "placeholder" is not appropriate here, and it reads badly. Eroberer (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a responses for you, but before we continue, I would like to hear back from SilkTork --Flyswatting (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile having reliable sources which support the notability of the commune independent of the shooting. It is worth bearing WP:GEOSCOPE in mind, as in general we tend to keep articles on topics which have more than local interest, but delete those whose coverage has been limited to the local media. Are there sources beyond newspapers and tax returns for this commune?

This article - Mildred Gordon (Ganas) - is very questionable. Why is she considered to be notable? Can you find better sources? At the moment her standalone article is saying less about her than can be found in this article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mildred Gordon (Ganas) article can be deleted or de-linked for now if it's distracting, I'd like to focus only on the Ganas article here. SilkTork I don't think there are sources beyond newspapers and tax returns, do you mean books for example? Are you proposing the article focus almost exclusively on the shooting incident? Excluding anything that does not appear in non-US sources? I don't necessarily have a problem with that but I'm certain many others will. Alot of people want this article to be mainly an advertisement for Ganas' businesses, which is what it tends to fill up with in the name of neutrality. Could you please address the question of including feedback learning discussed in the next section? I am trying to pin down exactly what Flyswatting objects to, the discussion is going nowhere fast. Eroberer (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree on lack of notability, and removal of the Ganas article. Also, I would add the following to geoscope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper --Flyswatting (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree on removal of Ganas article but will agree to removal of Mildred Gordon (Ganas) article if it helps us focus on Ganas article. Eroberer (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that there are reliable sources, I don't think an AfD discussion would agree to delete the article, and if it went up to AfD I would support keeping it. My point is that, at the moment, the better sources and the greater indication of notability is for the shooting, so the shooting would need to be prominent in the article. The question about focus of the article is pertinent, and is worth examining if sources cannot be found to support notability. The first stage, though, is looking for reliable sources which significantly mention the commune as notable distinct from the shooting. I note that the Brooklyn Rail piece was published in the same month as the shooting, but doesn't mention it. That's probably a coincidence. Even though a local media source, it is a reasonable source. Be good to find an academic source which has studied this commune. If the commune and/or Mildred Gordon's philosophy is notable, there will have been some mention of it somewhere. Not everything that is published is online. As you folks are subject specialists, do you have access to publications/journals that deal with these sorts of communes. Or you could approach your local libraries to ask for help - that's what they are there for, and I have found libraries to be very helpful in tracking down sources. The more local the library is to the commune, the more likely they are to have material that might help. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an academic source would be excellent, but I doubt it exists. Give me a week to see what I find. --Flyswatting (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a commune by definition is income sharing, and only the core group of 10 persons fits that description. As a whole, it is more appropriate to call Ganas an intentional community. IC for short, as in http://directory.ic.org/431/Ganas. --Flyswatting (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Intentional Community is a term that came into vogue in the 1920's. Since 1963 such groups have "collectively" been known as communes. Communes don't "believe" in the concept of private property but I would disagree that they are "by definition" income sharing. This has always been a matter of controversy to those involved in the communities themselves, who don't want to be associated with communism as a political system. This discrepancy is mentioned in the article, and it is worth noting that the majority of sources refer to Ganas as a commune. Eroberer (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Communal is defined as "shared by all members of a community". Only the core group share ownership of the Ganas property, and are income sharing. Other members are more like tenants. There are Intentional Communities called Co-Housings, that DO believe in the concept of private property. --Flyswatting (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said the discrepancy is noted in the article. I'm not sure if any source details exactly who shares what so all we are left with is the fact that the majority of sources refer to Ganas as a commune. This article is about Ganas, not intentional communities, co-housing or anything else. Eroberer (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Some sources:

• online university source

Is the "International Co-operative Alliance" a reliable source? Sorry I'm being fastidious. I just want to know before I use it as a source. --65.88.88.78 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say it would be a reliable source on co-operatives - see International Co-operative Alliance. If unsure, ask at WP:RS/N. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is a book, but is the same as the online version already used in the article

This is from the FIC. Their website is http://ic.org. Would they be considered a reliable source? --65.88.88.78 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Same as above. see Fellowship for Intentional Community and confirm at WP:RS/N

• Book

If you are going to look for books about Ganas, I think your search terms should be the following: ["staten island" ganas community OR commune] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

These books appear to be travelogue-types that repeat press-release type material. Eroberer (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The previous book search is a subset of this search, as it includes book sources that don't mention feedback learning. --96.250.214.152 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is useful to get a range of sources. I would encourage any search that produce results, and urge that more than one search parameter is used to ensure as wide a range of sources as possible - for example, limiting a search to either "Ganas negative" or "Ganas positive" would be inappropriate. We want positive, negative, neutral, academic, casual, travelogue, sensational, etc. We do not pre-select, we summarise encyclopaedicly and neutrally all the significant coverage that the topic has produced, and aim for an appropriate balance. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Library containing four sources

Aside from the newspaper article that has already been used, this Library contains works by Mildred, published by an organization headed by Mildred. It is not WP:RELIABLE. --65.88.88.78 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The articles by Mildred are primary sources I would classify under WP:SPS. They would be useful sources for explaining Feedback Learning with the caveats discussed in WP:SPS, in the same way that Scientology-published material could be used to explain Scientology beliefs. I have questions about how to cite them, as they appear to be only available through a specialized library at USI. How readily available to the public do sources need to be? Eroberer (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on using primary sources with care. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Preference is always given to sources that are in English, are up to date, and are available. But, provided the source conforms to what we understand as reliable, and there is no better alternative, then we do not disallow it because it is awkward to access. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• page of sources

From a very disgruntled ex-ganas member. Don't expect quality sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

These sources are newspaper articles, not "from" any ex-member. Eroberer (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• source needs checking

This is a copy of an earlier edit from Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Journal by Diane Gilman and Robert Gilman

If the Context Institute is a reliable journal, then I encourage it's use as a source --65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Check at WP:RS/N for Context Institute - though I would be inclined to say it is OK, because the founders both have articles on Wikipedia, and Context Institute is cited by scholars. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that there is enough material out there to support a view that the commune had moderate notability, mainly among those interested in communes, and those living locally to the commune, and that it then attained a wider and larger notability after the shooting incident. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be searching for reliable sources about Ganas that have come after the shooting. Otherwise it is an indicator that the Ganas community is itself not notable. --Flyswatting (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The local library does not have any sources other than newspaper/magazine articles that have already been covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the commune has moderate notability mainly among those interested in communes. I am very familiar with the available sources, though not those mentioned above, and I would be shocked if there is any academic investigation of feedback learning. Can we proceed for now as if none exists and if Flyswatting or someone else turns something up we will deal with it then? I'd like to see where SilkTork is headed with this. I'd like to know if SilkTork knows how to access the material at Library containing four sources, must one get this directly from USI? Eroberer (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You needn't apply direct to that library, you can make a note of the sources and apply to your own library. You may already have the sources - I see one is a New York Times article that is already used here. Where am I going? It's a question of sorting out the focus of the article. I would like to see if there is agreement that the community has some notability as a community, though a wider notability comes from the shooting. That would mean that the article should make prominent reference to the shooting, but should also cover the community's history and development, using the sources that can be turned up. It's a question of appropriate balance. Hitler was a decorated soldier in the First World War and was author of Mein Kampf, but the lead paragraph of his article mentions "his central leadership role in the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II and the Holocaust", as those events are of wider notability. I think it is the question of focus and balance that is at the heart of this dispute. If we can get agreement on the focus, then we are making big steps to sorting out the dispute. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork! I'm glad I came to you for help. Please lead us to getting agreement on the focus of the article. What can we agree on as to the the community's history and development? I definitely think that provides context for the shooting incident at the least, and it would be a mistake to limit the article to the shooting itself. Eroberer (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have replied to queries above. The situation regarding sources doesn't appear to have made progress, as no new sources have been found, so we are in a position that the sources that can be found do indicate that the community has a moderate notability as a community, and a larger one due to the shooting. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't yet look through the 55 book results, as I awaited some feedback from you. I think some time is needed to go through and come to that conclusion. I think this old Wikipedia version has significance http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ganas&direction=prev&oldid=303441319. It is before either Eroberer or I started editing it. --Flyswatting (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreement on focus

At this point I think it is fair to say that the conflict has centred on the focus of the article. What to include and how to present it. How much detail and what type of detail, etc. There are legitimate concerns regarding who gets named, and why they are named. And concerns regarding the amount of negative or sensational detail. Looking at the sources in the article, and then doing some brief research on sources, it appears that:

1. The community has some notability in their neighbourhood, and some notability among those who are interested in intentional communities
2. The community has a wider notability due to the shooting incident

If both parties can agree those two statements, then we can look at what would be an appropriate focus for the article. Eroberer has already indicated agreement, though a formal signing here would be helpful. A simple agree or disagree with a signature is fine. Flyswatting is still doing some research. Seven days to complete the research seems reasonable. I would expect Flyswatting to respond within seven days. After that response we will move forward with the discussion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 07:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The shooting shouldn't be a focus, because Jeff was a victim and is not WP:WELLKNOWN:
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization --Flyswatting (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That leaves finding WP:RELIABLE, notable WP:GEOSCOPE sources about Ganas that were written before or after the shooting to prove the Ganas community is notable outside of the shooting. --Flyswatting (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seven days seems reasonable - that's the time of an AfD. We'll talk again then. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Have we an agreement on the focus? The last comment here was that Flyswatting disagreed, and was going to look for sources that showed that Ganas has notability greater than that afforded by the shooting. If Flyswatting has found sources, please say so. If not, then please agree with the above statements so we can move forward. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Flyswatting made some comments and questions about sources above you may want to look at. Still don't know what he wants to say through them. I'll be happy to move forward with SilkTork if Flyswatting doesn't want to participate. Eroberer (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New section below. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Communication Styles

• I'd like to restore the following to the lead: "Ganas is an urban experiment committed to exploring applications of Feedback Learning, a group problem-solving process originated by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon." Anybody have a problem with that sentence? Eroberer (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That is drawing from only one perspective. "Ganas is founded on the idea to live with a self-selected extended family, learning how to work out the problems that arise when more than a few are sharing resources." Quote from http://nycal.mayfirst.org/node/2558 --Flyswatting (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (copying relevant discussion below): --Flyswatting (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

However Ganas describes itself as, or if they promote open communication or not (much less succeed), is not something quantifiable --Marelstrom (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored self definition as it tells us that Ganas' purpose is feedback learning, pretty crucial information I think! I don't know what you mean by quantifiable? It seems like Ganas residents don't want to be associated with feedback learning, I don't know why they find that objectionable all of a sudden.

You missed the point. The way they describe themselves is not necessarily what they are. That is subjective. But they do have 3 businesses, they do organize a yearly festival, etc. These things are quantifiable. --Marelstrom (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If The way they describe themselves is not necessarily what they are why not let the reader decide that? Who are you to decide what they truly are, speaking of subjective? Eliminating their central purpose is downright deceptive, and since you want other contributors please make an effort to find some (objective non-Ganas residents) instead of constantly creating more work for me to do. Eroberer (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a quote straight from their website: "Good interactive communication is our central value" --Marelstrom (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be hearing anyone but yourself. They already have their own website, it's not to be repeated here. Everyone involved with this article is against that. Eroberer (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: I restored self definition as it tells us that Ganas' purpose...". (bolded for emphasis) Wouldn't a self definition best come from their website? --Marelstrom (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually not a self definition, it comes from the FIC website and appears to be written by the videographer, though the language no doubt comes from Mildred Gordon. So no, a self definition is not necessary since a better quasi-independent one exists. On their website, on their tax returns, in the media Ganas emphasizes the importance of feedback learning to the commune and it's important for the reader to know, it should be a substantial part of the article and reflected in the summary. I am still waiting for some explanation of why they/you currently seek to hide, deny and delete any reference to feedback learning. It makes no sense at all. It's like a Scientology article that doesn't mention dianetics, auditing or L Ron Hubbard. Eroberer (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"An urban experiment in open dialogue based on full disclosure and commitment to exploring applications of Feedback Learning" This sentence is jargon that needs to be turned into common english. --Marelstrom (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice that before Flyswatting edited their own objection to restoring "Ganas is an urban experiment committed to exploring applications of Feedback Learning, a group problem-solving process originated by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon." they had answered:

Statement had been previously removed because it was a poor choice of words. Do not recover that which has been deleted by the original author, especially when no one has yet responded. --Flyswatting (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So I am asking: does Flyswatting object not because they see this as a negative statement but because it is "historical"? And by "historical" do they mean that feedback learning is no longer practiced at Ganas? Eroberer (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be another killing before the news media would find that out for us. The only certainty is that you can't introduce Feedback Learning in the lead without explaining it in simpler terms, because no one knows what the jargon "Feedback Learning" is. Also, and again, I have objection to including much detail about Mildred on BLP grounds. You will note that all the work you put into that article was deleted. --Flyswatting (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Another killing? What??? Feedback Learning is a group problem-solving process originated by Mildred Gordon. There it is, a simpler explanation. It is discussed again in Culture section, there doesn't need to be a long explanation in the lead. You are avoiding the question: do you object because you see it as negative, or historical, or jargon, or drawing on one perspective? Or all of these? And what is the problem or bias with that perspective? What are the particular details about Gordon you object to? Give us one example, one sentence, one word and explain how it is objectionable. And "sensationalistic" is not a valid objection, say how it is negative or biased. I don't see anything sensationalistic about a fraud investigation. For-profit colleges in the US are currently under investigation by Congress, is that sensationalistic? Should the public be protected from this "titillating" news? No they should not.

As to the revisionism Flyswatting is practicing on this talk page I will let SilkTork address it. I find it confusing and evasive. What say you SilkTork? Eroberer (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreements

It would be useful to see what is and is not agreed on. Please sign next to the statements below. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is about the focus of the article

Agree

--Flyswatting (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

The main focus should be the community

Agree

--Flyswatting (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The main focus should be the shooting

Agree

Disagree

--Flyswatting (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be a balance between the community and the shooting

Agree

Equal coverage? Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

The shooting shouldn't be a focus, because Jeff was a victim and is not WP:WELLKNOWN:
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization --Flyswatting (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There are more reliable sources on the shooting than on the community

Agree

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

There are more reliable sources on the community itself than on the shooting

Agree

Disagree

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The community is also notable for its shops and businesses

Agree

Merits mention but should not be promotional Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

The community is also notable due to the involvement of Mildred Gordon

Agree

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

The community is also notable due to the involvement of other people

Agree

Disagree

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The community is also notable due to Feedback Learning

Agree

Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

Newspaper articles should not be used exclusively in establishing notability.

Agree

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Sensationalism --Flyswatting (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

Eroberer (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeff was a victim and is not WP:WELLKNOWN

Agree

Disagree

Eroberer (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Mildred notable?

Agree (notable)

Yes Eroberer (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree (not notable)

Comments

• Please add any other statements that you feel are worth raising. If there is an agreement on what is notable and worth including, then you can agree on finding sources and building the article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Some time is needed to go through and catalog sources that have not been used in the past. --Flyswatting (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears there is little agreement on focus.Eroberer (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that was useful. Flyswatting is concerned about too much focus on the shooting (and I assume other negative details in the article, though we can come to those later). Flyswatting has said that the victim is not well known, and that that the article should avoid victimization.

OK. The shooting has reliable sources, so it can't be avoided. But it would be appropriate to write about the shooting in such a manner that only the pertinent details are included.

At the moment the article says:

In May of 2006 Ganas co-founder Jeff Gross was shot outside of his home on Ganas property. Gross survived and at trial identified the shooter as Rebekah Johnson, a former member who lived at Ganas periodically until she was evicted in 1996. Johnson had unsuccessfully sued the group for fraud and sexual harassment in 2000. Johnson's attorney denied that she had shot Gross, but said that she was "wrongfully accused by Gross as payback for portraying him as a brainwashing rapist and the commune as a kinky cult." In August of 2008 Johnson was acquitted on charges of second-degree attempted murder, first-degree assault and attempted grand larceny following less than five hours of deliberation by a jury.

Jeff Gross left the group after the shooting, and filed several lawsuits against both Ganas and Rebekah Johnson. Gross claimed that the leadership rejected his requests that the group upgrade security, that his personal daily schedule was published in a Ganas newsletter, and that he was "booted out" of Ganas in October 2007. Gross is seeking damages totaling over $20 million.

Can we work on these two paragraphs to get agreement on what is appropriate. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 20:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I will adjust the citation needed sentence. The Sunday Times source mentions that Johnson had unsuccessfully sued the group for sexual harassment, though doesn't mention the fraud. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 21:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it solve the problem to discuss the shooting without using any names? I think it's a little silly but...would that help? Eroberer (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That would not be appropriate. It would tease the reader. "One of the founders was shot." The question then is - which one? I think it's a matter of sticking by the guidelines and ensuring that all information is securely cited to reliable sources, and that the information is presented in a neutral manner, without undue dwelling on details, and without wandering away from the central points. For example - the mention of Johnson suing for sexual harassment is sober and factual. It does not go into the lurid detail that the Sunday Times does with mentions of "kinky sex", lesbian orgies, and sex with dwarves. I think that the paragraphs above are OK as they stand, though it would be worth scrutinising them, and getting as much agreement as possible that the paragraphs are neutral, factual, sober, and do not deal in any sensational or extraneous detail. It is important to bear in mind that Rebekah Johnson is also a victim here, so statements about her should also be neutral and sober. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 14:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The section about the shooting in this old article would be fine (before either of us started editing): http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ganas&direction=prev&oldid=303441319. --Flyswatting (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No the old Wiki article is not acceptable. I agree with what SilkTork is saying above, don't want the lurid bits either but would like to see some explanation of the reason for the shooting as far as possible with the sources available. Don't know how possible that is without veering into synthesis, etc. I will look it over later. Eroberer (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason is subjective. What happened is objective. Wikipedia is not for opinions. In cases of articles with opinions, all sides are presented. I think this article is not important enough to be going into much detail. Anyway there is not enough documentation to present all opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyswatting (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the reason is subjective, and that we do not give or present our opinions. What we usually do is report the reasons and opinions given in reliable sources; allowing as much attention to alternative views and opinions as appropriate and within guidelines. So we give more attention to mainstream views than we do to fringe views. In this case we have a shooting that has been covered by reliable sources. We cover the details of the shooting, and the important consequences. A person was shot. Another person went through a trial for that shooting and was found not guilty. The reason why that person went through a trial when there was no direct evidence is because the person who was shot identified her. A key defence claim as to why the person who was shot identified her was that she had identifiable issues with the individual, such as suing him, and stalking him. Why did she sue him? Because she felt she had been subjected to sexual harassment. It appears as though this all links in. Though we do need to look carefully at the claims and counter-claims and include only those which have been identified by reliable sources, and which do seem essential. Do we need to have a list of the charges? "...of second-degree attempted murder, first-degree assault and attempted grand larceny" seems excessive. I wonder if "In August of 2008 Johnson was acquitted on all charges against her...." would be enough? And what is "...following less than five hours of deliberation by a jury" adding? I'm not clear on the significance of the time as it stands in the article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think even less detail should be included. WP:NOTWHOSWHO WP:DUE --Flyswatting (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those links - they are what I am basing my above comments on. Could you please expand on your sentence. I am attempting to assist you with ensuring this article is accurate and fair, and it would help if you could specifically point out the exact words and phrases you feel are too much. It would also be helpful to give a reason. Please be aware that I am working hard to get you to articulate your objections and I am running out of patience. I did state at the start that if this got tiresome or if either of you engaged in "I don't like it" statements that I would withdraw. Please make a little more effort - at the moment it doesn't feel like you wish to negotiate at all, but simply wish to object. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork wrote: "What we usually do is report the reasons and opinions given in reliable sources; allowing as much attention to alternative views and opinions as appropriate and within guidelines." I think Wikipedia's job is more about presenting facts than it is about portraying opinions. Do you want to present Sensationalism, even from reliable sources? Reliable sources are not infallible. Also consider there are 55 book sources to go through. --Flyswatting (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents human knowledge which is found in facts and opinions. There is no point in arguing on this talkpage against what Wikipedia is doing, or your opinion on that. We need to focus on ensuring the article is fair, balanced, informative and neutral. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My patience is also being tried, but I am not complaining. I am expressing my opinions when I think they differ from yours, so that we can come to some consensus. I gave you the reasons I think in this case it is NOT worthwhile to express the opinions of the newspapers, and you are avoiding the issue. I don't think Wikipedia is a place to carry on Sensationalism. Also, and I doubt you will disagree with this: we have an incomplete picture, because book sources have less than WP:DUE weight in this article. If opinions are to be expressed at all, the books should be reviewed to ensure due weight.

When you wrote: "I think it's a matter of sticking by the guidelines and ensuring that all information is securely cited to reliable sources, and that the information is presented in a neutral manner, without ... mentions of "kinky sex", lesbian orgies, and sex with dwarves." I did agree with you. However, I don't think there should be as much objective detail as you describe, because the article is about Ganas, and not the shooting at Ganas. If you want a separate article about the shooting at Ganas, then create one (and even then there will be BLP concerns, as I have mentioned more than once before). --Flyswatting (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How about this: If Flyswatting wants to include more material from book sources please devote your time to finding what you want to include and present it here. This talk page is just going on and on in circles and we're all getting cranky. Instead of focusing on what you want to exclude, what do you want in include to "complete the picture" and give WP:DUE its due? Eroberer (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I need a month. Unlike SilkTork, I don't work on Wikipedia full time. --Flyswatting (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. In the meantime others will get on and edit the article. I cannot allow the article to be held up any longer as it's already been almost a month with no progress on the article. I can be contacted on my talkpage if there are any concerns. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick clean up

I have read through and tidied up some obvious concerns. I have removed the existing tags as I feel those issues have been dealt with. I have placed a new one of "too detailed" on the finance section. I feel that can be cut down a bit. The Allegations section could also be looked at more closely as it does appear to come across as unnecessarily negative in tone. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In general I think SilkTork's changes are an improvement. However I would like to keep the Controversy section instead of Allegations, for one thing the controversies about Ganas involve more than these allegations which I'll explain further. Plus Controversy seems like a less negative term than Allegations. I also think there should be some mention of Gordon's background with GROW. This was agreed upon after much debate several months ago. I'll deal with it tomorrow. Eroberer (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Flyswatting again

Reverted to 439914645 revision, Flyswatting's repetitive changes after SilkTork's intervention is disruptive and not an improvement with the exception of the first paragraph which I left intact. Flyswatting and assorted socks please stop sabotaging this page. Eroberer (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)