User talk:Joevanisland

Just a Notepad Up Here

Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:Manual of Style

When Back list: Help that Ritu_Beri article and other english-translation issues. NYPRDR misused words Bhanu_Athaiya for pictures/graphics Don't bite Breaks

"Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Comments Below Please

thank you

Sir, thank you very much for your input on the Mind Dynamics article. I believe that the entire series of LGAT articles is unbalanced and negative. I have been working in vain to either inject opposing viewpoints or minimize the flagrant pejorative connotations that are injected by contributors which, by their repeated similar edits, appear to be intentionally leading the reader to a desired conclusion. Virtually every edit or change I make either disappears due to some very technical rule or vanishes among a rapid string of edits. Lsi john 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. I am alternating between anguish that so much WP policy/philosophy exists only on "paper" here, and some sense of mission that if that is so, I should hunt down examples and take it on. Too bad doing so is so bloody exhausting!

I feel strongly that WP<>Conclusions as far as the actual articles go, and I indeed see the same points you raised -- points that stand up for WP and so are correct here regardless. Many people wish their corner of WP was immune to the bigger principle, it seems. Regardless of what I or any editor believes Mind Dynamics may represent, it can't, as I wrote over there, let me know what the editors think on the article page. Certainly you rightfully pointed out issues such as the "embroiled" quote, which clearly by policy here should be attached directly to a speaker and not listed as if that adjective itself is the fact. And like many articles here, it seems desperate to portray the result of a writer's reading of all the citations, more than present the points and allow the reader that task. It must be the readers' task!

So much writing here reads defensive as if its position is under attack and on its last breath, when in truth I find that attitude in articles representing the mainstream and obviously dominant position, not the other way around. Its starting to feel like a perverse censorship to me, as if there is a threat to letting someone be exposed to an idea they alone should decide to reject or accept. Isn't that odd? If editors don't trust readers to reach intelligent conclusions, then they are commented on our education system or their own ability to write. None of that is an argument in favor of non-neutrality. Why be so afraid? Controlling articles here is to me de facto book burning because it consciously seeks to prevent one's own conclusion in favor of an editor's belief (right though they may be) that their own conclusion is more intellectually sound.

Encyclopedias present verifiable knowledge for the sake of allowing a reader to become informed, not for the sake of showing a reader what they should think! Where are the editors who believe in this?

Articles are not tools for teaching the accepted view; they are tools for informing the reader of those views. So count on me for help in any such battles, but forgive me for times those we may dislike may by policy be correct, and I seem to turn on you in an instant!

I'm unsure what to do until any formal-ish proceedings between you and Smee settle out. You and I could work out some of the article leads in this space, as that has no implications to Smee, but in the article space it would be unfair of me to assume Smee does not want neutrality also. So far I see this as a case where certain negative facts are true and the POV is often a matter of where in the article those facts are stated.

I'd rather jump in to the article after any dispute process finishes (though I'll be away for a few days), as I haven't in fact warred at all with Smee (who is welcome to post here) and should assume her good faith unless I'm attacked or she claims ownership on an article as a response to edits of mine. If you're willing to work further, I certainly am, and Smee or someone has already done a lot of work on those references. I can't see this not leading to an acceptable article eventually. None of us has to have it our way. We just have to concede to balance and verifiability. And if it helps, I agree that it is a defensive straw-man posture to repeatedly answer fair questions of bias and motive by crying NPA. Editors do edit for POV, but they don't always do it on purpose. Suggesting motive is NPA; suggesting bias is healthy. Good faith by all will win. Joevanisland 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an opportunity to read this another dozen times or so, as a hasty reply would be a grave injustice. Thank you. Lsi john 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(::p.s. saw your background on your userpage and could use a mathematicians help. Possible to briefly explain what would mathematically constitute "disproportionate"? How does one determine if by fact if the population of an age segment (65+) of a city is "disproportionate"? Is there a standard for "proportion" in this context in math? IN other words at what point is something "more" but not "disproportionate"? I realize this is probably more statistics but threw it out here in case you can help. Cheers.)

You are correct, that would be a question for a statistician. My father taught me: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics! I took a couple statistics courses in college (20 yrs ago), but they didn't spark an interest and I went other directions. You wouldn't happen to need a solution for any abstract linear equations would you? Lsi john 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I have dis-engaged from Smee and the hostility. It took a while, but I finally saw that I was choosing to be unproductively embroiled in controversy and I have re-chosen.

In response to your comments above, you may wish to read my thoughts on my userpage. Your feedback is appreciated.

-Peace in God Lsi john 14:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

If you have a moment, could you review my recent edits on Lifespring? Am I on the right track for removing article bias and leading comments? Lsi john 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I work from my pc here at home, don't really sleep much, and "have a moment" 99% of my life, but I have to pack now for a quick 2 day trip! I'll be back Wed/Thurs, happy to help you then. Don't fight with Smee while I'm gone! I would hate to think we could fix up those tags and come back in two days to see it's all a huge mess. Her civility to me earns my respect, but I hope everybody puts away that WP:NPA card for awhile. I would think if one of us isn't squirming, we're not really getting anywhere.

If you get the time, maybe see if you can sum up for me and post it here, a bit about how you'd explain Mind Dynamics to me casually, in a pub say, so I know what your honest point of view is here, your opinion. I don't think balancing viewpoints is difficult in the lead at all. I think what's difficult is one side has to accept the sources should decide the weight of those positions in the body of the article. Particular wording is not useful without Smee's participation, so just give me your gist of it, if you have specific ideas. It'll be fun. Cheers. Joevanisland 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great trip. Actually, I'd love to toss a few darts with you in a pub. Lsi john 07:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]