Jump to content

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Across.The.Synapse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:

[edit]

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer: No.

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: A rather elementary instance of content dispute, with some possible overtones of policy dispute.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer: None (I'm not aware of anything else), I just got to this site from the main Help page.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: To have all of my contributions/deletions added back, invariably, eternally, and without exception. No, just kidding. In all seriousness, I just want to improve the article and, at a bare minimum, remove the clear historical fallacies presented about Socrates. The most I would want is a page on Socrates that reads like -- and has been -- created by experts.

Summary:

[edit]

I've tried to add some content to the Socrates article which I find to be agreed upon by scholars of philosophy history, and a number of my contributions have been removed. Besides that, I've also deleted a number of statements about Socrates which are clearly untrue (for instance, Socrates advocated military communism, which is only presented in the Republic, and is actually one of Plato's ideas), clarified certain portions which stumble into vagueness and awkwardness, and deleted a long quote from the Phaedo that was unwarranted. Almost all of my revisions have been reverted or removed on the page; I think this is both unfair to me, and is silly because historical fallacies about the man are being presented as though they belong in an encyclopedia. For instance, one shouldn't see in an article, that Socrates made a conscious choice to emulate the midwifery of his mother, and this is why he created his dialectic approach. One shouldn't keep this statement and then list all the reasons why it is wrong, so as to make the article unnecessary garrulous and destroy its form.. One should just delete it. Most of this is covered in a discussion I created at the talk page, entitled "Wikipedia 911." I would recommend you also check that out.


Discussion:

[edit]

Followup:

[edit]

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:


AMA Information

[edit]

Case Status: closed


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/Across.The.Synapse&oldid=1138375342"