Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-22 Mary Baker Eddy
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Mary Baker Eddy |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 00:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | User: Digitalican User: 172.190.228.32 (possible sock puppet) |
| Mediator(s) | PhilKnight (talk) |
| Kommentar | Discussion about application of the No Original Research policy. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Mary Baker Eddy]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Mary Baker Eddy]]
What's going on?
[edit]User 172.190.228.32 (self-signed as Thanatos the Scythe Bearer) is simply refusing to observe any of the Wikipedia guidelines or conventions with respect to his personal theories about Mary Baker Eddy. His edits are certainly POV (false prophet!?) and his theories both unproven and unprovable. I don't have a dog in this fight. For the most part I've tried to maintain the status quo letting the others who are iterating to a solution do their work in relative peace. User has in addition threatened sock puppetry (observe his edits at the bottom of the talk page.) This happened before about 7 months ago resulting in freezing the page for a few days. (Fine with me. It kept him out of all of our hair for quite a time.) I'm expecting an edit war and am seeking advice.
I refer you to Talk: Mary Baker Eddy for full context of the dispute.
Digitalican (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
What would you like to change about that?
[edit]I'd like him to observe the Wikipedia guidelines and protocols. In some sense it's not a content issue as I'd be happy to engage with him in rational discussion, but this seems not to be possible.
Mediator notes
[edit]Administrative notes
[edit]Discussion
[edit]Now who are you calling a sock puppet? Also, your efforts were truely in vain can, as it was spring/summer earlier on, I had better things to do, now that winter has rolled around however, I've got Nothing but time. Also, if you would actually refer to my prior posts, what matters here is Truth, wikipedia's standards are both irrelvant and superfluous; and here the truth is as follows:
- Quimby had interactions with Eddy including sharing of concepts etc. as happens in general chitchat.
- Eddy got notions from Quimby, as is obvious due to the similarities between Quimby's "New Thought" and Eddy's pseudo-science, as it cannot be called science by any stretch of the imagination, nor can it be called christian unless one uses the blanket concept of "christian = someone who believes in jesus christ." which is inaccurate and nebulous.
- Quimby's notions are derrived from hinduism and buddhism, as anyone that has studied these extensivly will know. Thus it is perfectly rational and accurate to say that Eddy was influenced by these beliefs, and I believe this to be relevant to her biography and should be available, lest a false light be cast that her only influences were christianity and the bible, which they were not (do the research).
- Eddy did not influence christianity or theology at all, any Theologian will tell you this. It would however be accurate to say that she took a template of christianity, used certain jargon from it etc. but this is where the semblance ends.
So here's a deal I propose, the lack of this information gives the article a look like it is trying to entice converts, which is why I contend that it is biased. What I'd like to see is refernce to her beliefs being influenced (I'll even go with "indirectly") by buddhism or hinduism, and that her religion was based on Personal Revelation along with said prior influence (which it was, for anyone that reads the text). Should those facts be included and visible, then I won't touch the page and I'll disappear. I will be keeping an eye on it though.
on a side note: where've you been the past 20 years digitalcan? The Internet is a Free-for-all enviroment, adherence to policies and rules are part of the reason the present incarnation of the internet exists. ya dig?
This concludes my side of the story/demands/terms/negotiations/whatever
- Could you list some references that support these views? PhilKnight (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The relationship between Phineas Quimby and Mary Baker Eddy is an area where there is a great deal of disagreement. If you look at the edit history of the article Mary Baker Eddy you can see there has been a fair amount of activity in that area of the article. If you read the article on Phineas Quimby you will see it denies a direct relationship between Quimby's philosophies and Christian Science. Any compromise here needs to include more people than just I as this is an ongoing (though not high-level) dispute. In addition to references I need to understand just what aspects of Hindu thought were in both Quimby's philosophy and Christian Science. I don't see any (and I have studied them a bit.) While I certainly agree with you that there are aspects of Christian Science that are similar to Buddhist (and Zoroastrian) thought it's not clear that they are directly related. Just because two dogs look alike does not mean they are from the same litter.
Christian Science is generally accepted as Christian (in the broadest sense.) Again, this isn't my fight, but that definition should not be changed unilaterally. If not christian, then what should it be classified as? This is all beside the point, however.
I realize that there are many places in the article on Mary Baker Eddy (among the many articles on Wikipedia) that need work on neutrality (not 'balance' which leads to argumentative and unreadable articles) but I find myself uncommonly resistant to 'proof through bullying.' I am not a defender of the Christian Science faith. I am a defender of the cooperative process of writing an article in Wikipedia. This process takes time and patience but also teaches us in addition to allowing us to teach.
Digitalican (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Phil, There is a bit of trouble with that, given if I were to hunt for sources would that not constitute "original research"? As I would be conducting research, independently of any journal or what have you.
In regards to Digitalcan's deal, perhaps one should check another encyclopedia, like Ye Oldé Brittanica for an assist, which I shall be doing myself, like I said, all I've got is time. But of course there is the standard trouble as with all information sources; that is, People are Human, anyone can write anything about anything, and the results, regardless of the source will have natural bias, as to have a completely and unbiased neutral point of view, one would need a robot or something similar which lacks sense of self, emotions et al. This is why I contend for Balance as opposed to the "NPOV" touted by wikipedia; that is to say I do not believe a "NPOV" can be maintained by anything human.
Lastly there is also the trouble of Time, not mine certainly, but the ammount of time that has passed between the life of the individuals being written about and present day, as most know, over time information can be lost, obscured, change over time due to it being passed down so long. In this particular case what is needed is someone who was intimate enough with Quimby to know if he traveled, preferrably someone who wasen't a close buddy buddy-type friend, but was also not a complete stranger...this same thing goes for Eddy. So you see the inherent problem with attempting to get straight info via "chinese whispers" as I believe it's called (no racism inteded that's what the phrase is called). I would also posit that wikipedia articles in themselves would not constitute proper research material, given the information can go whichever way the general consensus goes.
In Closing, would citation of sources gleaned from say, Brittanica or some other resource I dig up be valid and allowed, and what of "no original research"? Which is exactly what this is. -Thanatos The Scythe Bearer
- Hi Thanatos , I suggest you a look at this section of the No Original Research policy. Britannica is a tertiary source, while books, and journals are secondary sources. The policy explains:
- Hi Thanatos , I suggest you a look at this section of the No Original Research policy. Britannica is a tertiary source, while books, and journals are secondary sources. The policy explains:
| " | Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. | ” |
- Hope this helps. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Advice from a fellow cabalist
[edit]Digitalican, I attempted to mediate a disagreement about the Jehovah's Witnesses a couple of years ago. Based on that, I can tell you that issues of religion are very contentious. (Remember the old adage to avoid discussions of politics and religion in public.) So, my advise is to let the dispute run its course, as you have done. Then, give your advise. Be flexible in your resolution, but firm, stern at times, about WP policy, especially when the issues begin to rehash themselves. Eventually, ask WP admin to step in to block the perpetrator of WP policy, especially with regard to violating good faith efforts to reach consensus. Good luck. SteveMc (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)