User talk:Robertinventor/DRN Notice Draft

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Note from Dorje: I would add here something about reviewing Jonathan's interpretation of the following guidelines for:

Quotes within the main text of the article
- The meaning of "too many quotes"
Quotes within footnotes
Reliable sources (particularly in regard to Buddhist scholars who are not associated with Western universities)

I can always post this request separately as my input into the process. Dorje108 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably more specialized than we can expect of the volunteers for the DRN notice - is not like scholarly articles where you take things like this to editors who then contact reviewers who are expert in the subject. Here the reviewers are our fellow editors - and the volunteer moderators and such like - they are not expected to have any knowledge of the topic area. That's why I keep focus on the actual guidelines that we think are violated rather than the content issues as such - those would need to be determined by RfCs etc - but then that returns to the whole problem, how can something like this be solved by RfCs?

So - I think leave all that to the content discussions whenever or however those happen. And keep to procedure for now. And if there is a moderated discussion here, to keep it focused on whether or not to do a roll back.

Will be editing the DRN notice soon, taking account of your comments, and thanks a lot. A bit distracted right now as they have taken me back to ANI and are now proposing a site ban. Of course if they do succeed in banning me from wikipedia, then there is no chance of taking this any further. Anyway will see what happens, meanwhile, I'll do a bit more editing of the notice soon, can but press ahead with whatever we can do as long as we can and see what happens. Robert Walker (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a sentence "In addition to these issues, we have a major Difference of opinion on quotes|Difference of opinion on quotes and on Use of bikkhu scholars and other scholars trained in Eastern traditions as primary sources." which covers

Quotes within the main text of the article
- The meaning of "too many quotes"

* Reliable sources

which link to sections in the detail page. Also added

* "Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Additional_annotation (for quotes in footnotes)" which covers

* Quotes within footnotes

It is already covered in the main issues section, but wasn't yet mentioned here. Robert Walker (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main characteristics of the revisions

Added this seciton Robert Walker (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Robert Walker

Rewrote this section, and adding analogy of Christian and article on theology to explain connection between myself and Dorje108 and why it is I feel it is appropriate to try to do somethign about it as a reader although I have no wish to edit the articles myself when they are clearly in the hands of capable scholars. Robert Walker (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to make some edits

Hi Robert, I am going to go ahead and make some edits to your draft. Please feel free to revert my edits! Cheers, Dorje108 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to post my comments here instead. I would remove the following:

The results may be easier to read to a reader new to the subject, and the articles are a fair bit shorter. However, by being POV and leaving out details, in our view they go against the consensus that has been built up by wikipedia editors and recorded in the guidelines, through many debates, that wikipedia should be NPOV and detailed.

Main problem is POV. Articles being shorter is not a benefit of good information was removed. "Easier to read" very subjective. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]