Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Naturalistic pantheism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

r

Let's get started!

Hi there everyone, it's great to finally get under way. I am ItsZippy - you can call me Jack - and I'll be trying to help us reach a good conclusion to this dispute. I am hoping that we can come to an agreement about this dispute which will be acceptable to both of you; if we are to do that, we will need to keep ourselves focused on the content of the dispute. For that reason, I am going to ask that we avoid discussing each other personally and that accept that everyone is here to improve the article and make it the best it can be. We will keep all discussion relating to this dispute on this page - not on the article's talk page or anyone's user talk page - so do make sure to add this page to your watchlist.

The first thing we should do is define exactly what the issues that need to be resolved are. I would like both of you to write a brief summary below explaining, in your view, what the main issues we are trying to resolve are. Please keep your summaries to around 200 words, and please only focus on the content of the dispute - the actual content of the article that is under discussion - and avoid commenting on the history of this dispute, or the conduct of other users. If you have any questions at any point during the mediation, please ask me on this page. Thank you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. "Naturalistic Pantheism" has been mostly used to describe "natural law" pantheism, i.e. Baruch Spinoza's pantheism. The most prominent philosopher to use the phrase highlighted the fact that this is a pantheism without freedom (i.e. deterministic pantheism). Others highlight other monistic qualities. Meanwhile, the Naturalistic pantheism page on wikipedia (for years) has been used to lay out an entirely different and incorrect version of the phrase - one that promotes the views of The World Pantheist Movement. Right now the page continues to promote a unique and simplistic view of the phrase with little to no basis historically and includes information about their organization. I don't believe the organization's views have much if anything to do with the way this phrase has been used by scholars and I believe the "History" of the phrase currently is arbitrary original research information with little to do with what the phrase means. (Allisgod (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC))

Thank you Allisgod; we will wait for Naturalistic to give his view, then go on from there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Thankyou for mediating. My issues relate to the Pantheism page as well - I thought we were considering both? Is it possible to cover both here? The issues are closely related in both, this "edit war" has been taking place across both articles and the same issue arise in both. I remain extremely concerned about the state of the Pantheism page because Allisgod is also editing that in line with the agenda explained below. But unless this mediation is dealing with that also, I won't make extensive remarks on that.
--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Current state of the Naturalistic Pantheism article
Re the Naturalistic Pantheism article "right now" it has been enormously improved in the last month or so and does not in any way promote a single view. It takes a very broad view and cites reliable sources and covers various historical uses of the term including ancient and modern examples. Spinoza is in there too. The examples cited are ALL referred to as Naturalistic Pantheism in the sources cited so it's not OR that these are examples of it.
At one point the article did have a long section about the World Pantheist Movement's viewpoint, however I did not personally insert that long section and I don't know who did. I did not consider the section to be appropriate, and personally cut it by 95% or more and reduced it to a single line. I have tried all along to be as neutral and accurate in my editing as possible, and in the past 6 weeks or so have been more conscious than ever of the need to avoid conflict of interest editing.
--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Objective measures of academic usage of the term Naturalistic Pantheism
Allisgod's points above about how the Naturalistic Pantheism concept "has been mostly used" are very ill-informed. There are 1840 Google Books results for the phrase "Naturalistic Pantheism" and he has by his own admission viewed only a tiny selection. He mentions only the ones that appear to suit his personal definition, and on top of that misrepresents what they say.

If we stick to "he says, I say" debates we will get nowhere. We need an objective way of deciding how it "has been mostly used."
A good approach - and perhaps the only feasible approach - is to search Google Books results for the phrase "Naturalistic Pantheism" and examine what proportion of those results mention - versus do not mention - the terms determinism, monism, Spinoza, and Tillich ("the most prominent philosopher to use the phrase" in Allisgod's remark above).
These are the results:

Naturalistic Pantheism plus or minus the words:

Determinism: Mention: 63. Do not mention: 1780

Monism: Mention: 181. Do not mention: 1700

Spinoza: Mention: 324 Do not mention: 1500

Tillich: Mention: 63 Do not mention: 1770

[The totals vary because the results are sometimes rounded up or down by Google]
Thus out of the total book that mention Naturalistic Pantheism:

• 97% do not mention determinism;
• 90% do not mention monism;
• 82% do not mention Spinoza;
• 97% do not mention Tillich.
  

These are incontrovertible objective facts that anyone can verify by doing a Google books search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" and adding the extra word with and without a minus sign before it.
It's impossible in the light of these results to claim the term is "mostly used" in relation to the above concepts & people. It's obvious that an edit of that page along Allisgod's preferred lines would severely misrepresent the reality.
Now let's see what proportion mention versus do not mention the term that I consider the most significant for Naturalistic Pantheism:

Nature: Mention: 1170 (60%) Do not mention: 782 (40%)

I am not saying this is the only relevant term for Naturalistic Pantheism, and I mention in the intro and historical example several other uses of it.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod's agenda
Allisgod's position needs to be seen in the context of his very clearly stated personal agenda, which is very clearly reflected in his editing behavior. Ever since he first began editing Pantheism articles a few month ago, he has been pushing a very clearly stated and implemented personal agenda which consists in pushing and prioritizing determinism, Spinoza and Classical Pantheism, and attacking and wherever possible removing mentions of Naturalistic Pantheism and the World Pantheist Movement.
This is what he said in Talk: Pantheism: Yes, my "agenda" is promoting Baruch Spinoza, world famous philosopher from which the word pantheism was used to describe his philosophy; Charles Hartshorne, the only world renowned philosopher that discussed pantheism in depth; Determinism, the monist viewpoint associated to pantheism by many texts and major philosophers. And your agenda is the "World Pantheist Movement", an internet donation based environmentalist group started in 1999. Hmmm.. the "agenda" of Spinoza, Hartshorne, Determinism, Classical Pantheism versus the agenda of a president of a donation based website. (Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC))
--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod's bias against the term Naturalistic Pantheism
He also has a very strong bias against the term Naturalistic Pantheism. Originally he seemed unfamiliar with it and in Talk: Pantheism he suggested that I invented the term: So is this term just a created term by Harrison and does it warrant mentioning in this article? . . . I personally don't mind the term much, but if it is just an environmental writer's coined term or even a group's preferred expression of itself, then it should probably be treated as such. (Allisgod (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC))
Next, he began editing the Naturalistic Pantheism article and tried to transform it into a clone of Classical Pantheism, squeezing determinism and Spinoza into the intro.
After I created a version that was pretty impeccable in terms of sourcing, he proposed to AfD that the whole article be deleted. This was speedily rejected and the concept was recognized as notable by other editors.
Allisgod continues to remove every single mention of Naturalistic Pantheism from the main Pantheism article, despite the fact that the phrase has FOUR TIMES more Google Books results than Classical Pantheism, and has been used in a similar way for at least 120 years, and was recognized as notable by the AfD board.
--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, re the Naturalistic Pantheism article I don't see any middle way between his impressionistic and agenda-driven approach based on a clearly expressed bias against Naturalistic Pantheism, and my approach of accuracy based on objective research.
--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible compromise

I do however see the possibility of a compromise. I am quite happy with the current state of the Classical Pantheism article, which is overwhelmingly edited by Allisgod, and with the state of the Naturalistic Pantheism article, overwhelmingly edited by myself.
I would propose a kind of truce over these two articles leaving them largely as they stand. Obviously we can't account for what other editors might change.

I am not agreeable to a truce over the Pantheism article, though I am open to an attempt at mediation. It would be good if we could do that here, since otherwise another mediator will need to get familiar with all the back history and we will have to repeat all the same points again.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Naturalistic, thanks for your reply. To clarify, this mediation will cover both the Pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism articles, which are the ones that seems to be the centre of the dispute. Firstly, I think it will really help us all to avoid discussing the history of this dispute too much, or the agendas of other people. You have both said that you are willing to deal with these issues through mediation which is an important first step; now we need to be willing to put down the issues of the past and just deal with the content of the articles.

I think it would be helpful to separate out the issues and deal with them one at a time. I appreciate they are all related; however, if we deal with each issue individually, we might find it easier to reach an agreement. As far as I can see, the main issues (put simply) are:

1. How we should determine how much coverage any particular viewpoint should have on an article.
2. How much coverage the World Pantheist Movement should have on the Naturalistic pantheism article.
3. How much coverage the views of Spinoza, Hartshorne, and Tillich should have on the Naturalistic pantheism article.
4. How much coverage the World Pantheist Movement should have on the Pantheism article.
5. How much coverage the views of Spinoza, Hartshorne, and Tillich should have on the Pantheism article.

I would like to deal with those issues in that order. Does that summary seem reasonable to you both, or is there anything significant that I have missed? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The above is fine except it's not just the coverage of the World Pantheist Movement, but the coverage of the unique views of its president.

Also, you asked for 200 words and for us to focus on content. He put in 1200+ words and spent most of the time trying to make the case that I'm biased. Are we to honor rules here or shall I throw in a 1000 word speech going into how I think this user's only interest is his full time work to carefully market a donation based organization (and how he attacks anybody that gets in the way of that). I wasn't even sure how mediating was even possible with this kind of conflict of interest, but if we aren't going to honor basic rules then I start to question what is the difference between this mediation and what I've been dealing with in regular discussions with this user.(Allisgod (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

Ok, so the World Pantheist movement and its associated views? Does that sound alright?

And you are right, I did say 200 words and focus on content - I do appreciate that you stuck to that. Naturalistic hasn't helped himself with the extended post - I would like to stick to content, so I've avoided any of the history of conduct in my summary. You are right that, going forwards, we need to stick to the content - I am grateful that you've done that and would ask Naturalistic to do the same. I will wait for naturalistic to let us know if he is happy with the summary I put above, then we go through each of the issues. I hope that, by dealing with the issues one at a time, we will be able keep a good focus on the content. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I genuinely did not see that 200 word part. To be fair I can either edit mine down, or Allisgod should have equal space. ItsZippy, you suggest which approach you prefer.

Regarding my own personal views, I really don't think it was me who inserted references to myself and my own views. I did insert references to my book, because it happens to be the best selling book on Pantheism out of the three current titles. However, all those references are not there anymore on any of the three pages under discussion. I will not be inserting them again, though if other editors do, that's up to them.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

ItsZippy I think your list of issues is a good start. I would like to add a few more. All my comments here relate to content and editing, I leave aside the matter of motive as long as Allisgod also leaves aside the matter of motive.

• How much coverage and what kind of coverage Naturalistic Pantheism should have in the Pantheism article and where it should be placed.

[PROBLEM: Allisgod has been repeatedly removing every single mention of Naturalistic Pantheism.]

• How much coverage and what kind of coverage Classical/Deterministic Pantheism should have in the Pantheism article and where it should be placed.

[PROBLEM: Allisgod placed Classical/Deterministic Pantheism first repeatedly, even though it is not even a distinguishing feature of Pantheism as compared to theism or atheism - they all have their determinisms. In addition Allisgod expands the section to digress into his view of what determinism implies.]

• How much coverage and what kind of coverage there should be of Pantheist organizations including the Universal Pantheist Society as well as the World Pantheist Movement in the Pantheism article, and where it should be placed.

[PROBLEM: Allisgod repeatedly removed coverage of these organizations from History, then when a Pantheist organization section was created to placate him, he made many successive changes to the placement so as to make them less visible.]

There are also other minor matters not even on these lists, almost any little thing becomes subject to mutual reversion.

Also it's not just a question of how much coverage, but of what kind of coverage, because we don't just disagree on the amount, we also disagree on the significance and interpretation and placement of these items.

I believe that the method of using Google Books queries to examine the frequency of mention of certain concepts is a useful objective approach and a way of getting beyond "He says this, I say that". Each one of can easily provide selective quotes to back up their position - but the question is, what represents the actual balance of academic coverage out there in the real world?

Personally, I still think the compromise I suggested above may be useful at least for two of the Pantheism articles (Naturalistic Pantheism and Classical Pantheism) if it is acceptable to Allisgod, that would leave only the Pantheism article to deal with.
--Naturalistic (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't see my request, that's fine - don't worry about cutting it down or anything, we're beginning to establish the issues now, so we don't need to go back. I have seen your proposed compromise above; it might work, but we are trying to reach a conclusion that will work across all articles. Ideally, you will both be able to edit all of the articles collegiately, without having to stay out of each others' way. Your proposal about how to determine what should be included is an interesting one; that will be the first thing we discuss once we've sorted out what the main issues are. Thanks for you comments on additional issues we need to resolve, although it would be much more helpful if you could list the points of contention without reference to Allisgod's behaviour - that way we will focus on the content, not on what each other is doing. For now, this is a revised summary; let me know if it seems reasonable:

1. How we should determine how much coverage any particular viewpoint should have on an article.
2. How much and what kind of coverage the World Pantheist Movement should have on the Naturalistic pantheism article.
3. How much and what kind of coverage the views of Spinoza, Hartshorne, and Tillich should have on the Naturalistic pantheism article.
4. How much and what kind of coverage the World Pantheist Movement should have on the Pantheism article.
5. How much and what kind of coverage the views of Spinoza, Hartshorne, and Tillich should have on the Pantheism article.
6. How much coverage and what kind of coverage Naturalistic Pantheism should have in the Pantheism article and where it should be placed.
7. How much coverage and what kind of coverage Classical/Deterministic Pantheism should have in the Pantheism article and where it should be placed.
8. How much coverage and what kind of coverage there should be of Pantheist organizations including the Universal Pantheist Society as well as the World Pantheist Movement in the Pantheism article, and where it should be placed.

If you are both happy with that, we can get going with the first issue. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The pantheism article was the focus of a dispute resolution [1] last month between myself and user:naturalistic where a volunteer came and tirelessly helped us edit that article to be a more balanced scholarly article (See Pantheism:Talk for details). The number of references were doubled and that article is now much closer to an A quality article. The focus of this dispute/mediation is the naturalistic pantheism article which is still a C quality article highlighting a fringe view of what that phrase means. User:naturalistic began editing the pantheism page as this mediation began (attempting to delete an entire section about Spinoza) and demanded to bring the Pantheism page discussion back into the mix, which I agreed to despite having no major problems with the pantheism page. This suggestion that we abandon the focus on naturalistic pantheism and calling that a 'proposed compromise' is disingenuous and ridiculous. That said, I'm ready to continue. (Allisgod (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC))

If Allisgod does not like that compromise, we will continue to discuss Naturalistic Pantheism and Pantheism, no problem.

I am not surprised Allisgod has no problems with the Pantheism article, since as it stands it's exactly the way he molded it for the last month or so without any input from me till recently. I did resume editing, because at that point it had not been determined that Pantheism would also be covered by this mediation. I did not remove an "entire section" about Spinoza but simply reduced some of the excessive praise added into the intro. Pantheism is a broad church that has existed for at least 2500 years. Spinoza was reprising approaches that had been started by the Stoics, covered by some medieval Christians, and extensively treated by Giordano Bruno.

I personally have no problems with the Naturalistic Pantheism page as it stands today. Far from being fringe it covers a much wider range than Allisgod wishes to see. His own view of that phrase's meaning is almost identical with Classical Pantheism and as the search statistics above show, is not at all representative of majority usage.

We need to mediate both articles, otherwise the edit war over Pantheism will continue in the same fashion.

The C given to Naturalistic Pantheism was given some time ago, since which time it has been substantially improved.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

How we should determine how much coverage any particular viewpoint should have on an article

We are dealing here with two divergent viewpoints of two different editors. We have different conceptions of pantheism. I do not believe that our personal views of pantheism should influence what goes into the article. The question should be: has this been, or is it, part of the major coverage of Pantheism or one of the major developments in Pantheist history. Personally I believe we should:

• cover in a fairly concise way all the key varieties, thinkers and events and developments of Pantheism in a concise way, leaving the details to more specific articles.
  
• not exclude, suppress or downplay one or more of them because of our personal preferences.
  
• not inflate coverage of one or more of them because of our personal preferences.
  

I think that is the only way to serve Wikipedia's readers accurately and without bias.

In cases of contention:

• I cannot see any value in remarks like "most scholars say" or "the most reputable scholars say." This begs the question of accuracy, and of differing opinions on the value of scholars. Bringing individual sources to prove a limited viewpoint is of little use, since it's no problem for either of us to come up with individual quotes backing our personal position. We all know that there are far too many references for us to be able to assess more than a tiny proportion, and any statements based on a tiny proportion just boil down to "he says this, I say that" arguments.
• I believe that the best approach where we do not agree is to search Google Books or Google scholar for relevant words and phrases and examine what proportion of those results mention - versus do not mention - the terms that individuals claim are most important.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm confused about who is acting as the mediator here. I suggest that user naturalistic wait for the mediator to direct the discussion before framing the question or adding additional responses.

• I am fine with statistical analysis as long as it is carefully researched and an accurate reflection of fact. That is not something that can be accomplished with a simple search, accepting and throwing around incorrect figures without actually bothering to look into the results.

Please note that the statistical analysis cited by user:naturalistic from Google Books are incorrect. For example, Google's Book search doesn't come up with 1840 actual books that reference "naturalistic pantheism" as he stated earlier. He did not actually research those results. That number is actually under 200. The search engine incorrectly searches for words and phrases that it believes are related to the phrase and adds that to its results, creating a bloated number. If you scroll down and skip ahead through the pages of those results, you will find it limited to 32 pages with only a bit over 300 results. But the actual uses of the phrase within the content of those results are only under 200 (I have actually counted). Of those 200, the actual number of sources defining the phrase "naturalistic pantheism" are a fraction of those (my guess is a few dozen).

• Some sources are more important than others. Scholars in the subjects of philosophy and theology ought to be prioritized and all others can be challenged.

• Moreover, scholarly sources who are themselves sourced or highlighted by other scholars deserve highest prominence.(Allisgod (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

Jack (ItsZippy) already said, above, that we could start with the first issue [If you are both happy with that, we can get going with the first issue. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)], so I created a clear heading to make editing easier and made a start. I suggest we have one for each issue, otherwise it's hard to find particular points.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that we have agreed on the issues that we need to discuss - that is a good place to start. Now, the first thing we need to establish, as Naturalistic has said, is how we are going to determine how much coverage any particular viewpoint has in any article. If we can agree on this first point, then it will make the rest of this mediation much easier, as we will have a firmer place to start each discussion from. That might mean that this stage takes some time - that is necessary to provide good foundations for this mediation. It is also important that, once we get an answer to the first issue that we all agree on, we agree to stick to it. Could you both indicate that you accept the following two proposals.

• Dealing with the first issue, on how we should determine how much coverage any particular viewpoint should have on an article, might take some time.
• Once an agreement is reached between all parties on this issue, we will stick to what we have agreed. We will only move on when a solution is proposed that both parties clearly say that they agree to.

If you are happy with those two proposals, please signal your acceptance below (just an "I agree" is sufficient).

I agree (Allisgod (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC))

I agree --Naturalistic (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. I get the feeling (from the discussion I've already seen) that we all agree that using reliable sources is the best way to determine how much coverage each particular viewpoint should have on an article. Does that sound like something we can agree to? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack, we do agree on using reliable sources, of course. The problem is, we disagree about what are to be considered as reliable sources, and even among reliable sources we both agree on one can always make a selection to back up any preferred viewpoint, and one can misinterpret reliable sources.
Responding to Allisgod's points above

• Numeric Google searches: I don't agree with Allisgod's points here. If you search for (naturalistic pantheism) without quotes around it, you get 10,300 results. These are books containing these two words, but not necessarily together and maybe far apart and unrelated. When you search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" as a phrase, WITH quotes, you get only 1660 to 1840, depending whether to add a - term to it. These are books containing the PHRASE Naturalistic Pantheism. That phrase may not show up in the snippet given in the thumbnail. If we search for the words naturalistic pantheism determinism, we get 9,530 results. If we search for "naturalistic pantheism" as a phrase plus determinism, we get only 64. This degree of shrinkage suggests that when you search for the phrase, Google is not guessing using synonyms or similarly spelled words. Now we could skip through like Allisgod suggests - but a lot of material that he values would also be greatly shrunken if we did so. And in all probability we would disagree about where the sources that mention the phrase end. I believe the raw method is the least subjective.
  
• Once we get into deciding which scholarly sources are more important than others, there can be no end to the to- and fro-ing, because each of us will highlight sources that they prefer based on their own view of what pantheism is. We have already seen many examples of this already in our edit wars. For example, Allisgod values Hartshorne's "analysis" of pantheism, I do not. Hartshorne was a committed panentheist with an agenda of showing that Panentheism was superior, and framed his analysis of Pantheism accordingly. Tillich (who was a theologian rather than scholar) was also committed to showing the inferiority of Pantheism to his own version of Panentheism. We could have endless debates like that over every single scholar.
  
• Even if we insist on the concept of "scholar" we get into difficulties. Picton was not a scholar, he was a politician and preacher. Worman was not really a scholar - he was a librarian and language teacher.
• I think that if a "scholar" is coming from a particular religious tradition and writing critically about Pantheism (Worman, Hartshorne, Tillich, all Christians, all condemning Pantheism even as they write about it) that casts very serious doubt on the accuracy or neutrality of what they are saying.
  
• "Scholars in the subjects of philosophy and theology ought to be prioritized and all others can be challenged." I disagree. We are looking at the usage of terms over a few hundred years by all kinds of writers. Scholars in theology are going to be, in almost all cases, Christians (ie theists). Scholars in philosophy are not necessarily versed in the history of pantheism. Writers about individual Pantheists such as Einstein or Jeffers or Muir or Thoreau may be historians, writers on literature, writers on science. And when we say "scholars" what are we talking about - are we going to go into the degrees of every source? Even if we did we would still disagree in the same way we have been. Over and over again we have disagree 180 degrees over the reliability of a source.
  
• Even "scholars" who appear to be well qualified can write material that's full of errors. For example Bron Taylor (Dark Green Religion) is extremely well qualified to write what he writes - but his section on the World Pantheist Movement contains three errors. In addition, he's pushing his own preferred term, Gaian Naturalism, and downplaying all others.
  
• Even looking at the same individual sources, we seem to totally disagree on what they mean. In my opinion Allisgod tends to project his own preferences of determinism and Spinozism into almost every quote. I do not project Naturalistic Pantheism into each one. I have never tried to make all versions of pantheism resemble my own or to deny ones that don't fit my preference. I am not pushing to turn Classical Pantheism into a version of Naturalistic Pantheism. We would almost need a jury to decide on each one.
  
• The research program suggested in Allisgod's suggestions is simply not feasible. It would be a lifetime's full-time work. And EVEN THEN we would disagree and we would continue to throw reliable, but conflicting sources at each other. Scholars who have spent all their lives in the same small subject area disagree, often vehemently.
  

Allisgod's approach would produce a view of pantheism coming forth from Christian theistic-oriented or Christian theistic-trained writing about Pantheism. In fact that's what his view of Pantheism as presented in the current Pantheism intro and Classical Pantheism article resembles.
My approach is much broader. Pantheism is a very broad church, it cannot be squashed into a small frame created by a small group of biassed theistic scholars. There are vast differences between Spinoza and the Stoics, between Hegel and Einstein, between Advaita Vedanta and Daoism. We need to encompass all of these.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. It seems to me that if we are able to set out some principles here about what makes a reliable source in the field of pantheism, we might start to get somewhere. I know you have proposed using a Google Books search method, but if we are trying to use reliable sources, that will not work - being a book does not make a source reliable and, without going through every source, we have no way of knowing how many of the results are reliable and how many are unreliable. It is entirely plausible that the results will be skewed one way or another - there may be many more unreliable sources about one version of pantheism, and fewer about another; we don't know.

You are right that there is a lot of disagreement about what makes a source reliable in this field. Each book will need to be discussed individually, but if we can establish some objective criteria - without reference to any specific works - it will be easier to reach an agreement without having the discussion distracted by specific sources that support one position of another. For that reason, I would request that, for now, we do not name or make reference to any specific works in this field; rather, we talk about what makes a source about pantheism reliable. Can we agree to do that (let me know below, please).

In instances like this, it might can sometimes be helpful to involve the wider community. Perhaps we can come up between us with what we think defines a reliable source in the area of pantheism; we can then go to the community with an RfC to find the general consensus about how we should be defining reliable sources. Does that sound like a good idea? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with all that Allisgod (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack, the Google Books search method is separate and different from the issue of what individual sources are reliable. It is designed to point to some objective way of deciding what weight if any to give to the subjects/concepts/authors that the edit war is about. One we have decided , then we get to the issue of individual reliable sources.
The method I proposed above is designed

1. to investigate claims that a particular concept (eg determinism) is central to the definition of Naturalistic Pantheism, or Pantheism - eg it seems hard to claim that determinism is central to Naturalistic Pantheism, if a Google Books search shows that it is mentioned in only 3 percent of books that mention the phrase "Naturalistic Pantheism." Equally, if 60% of books that contain the phrase "Naturalistic Pantheism" also contain the word nature, then it is reasonable to claim that the concept of nature is central.
   
2. to examine claims whether a particular scholar or thinker has been critical to the shaping of the concept. For example, if Tillich is mentioned in only 3 percent of books that mention the phrase "Naturalistic Pantheism," then it's very hard to claim that he should be considered decisive in the definition.
   

If we are reduced to arguing over individual source's reliability and interpretation, we will get stuck just like we have been up till now, because we have already done a lot of arguing over the reliability of one source or another. We know that Allisgod and myself disagree over the reliability of Hartshorne and Tillich, over my own book Elements of Pantheism, and over the criteria by which they should be judged reliable.
It's been used against my book as a source, for example, that I run a pantheist movement and therefore may be biassed. If that argument is valid against me, it is also valid against Hartshorne (an active promoter and apologist of Panentheism) and Tillich (a panentheist theologian with his own theology to promote).
There is no way out of this endless swamp of conflicting claims, unless we have an objective measure like the proposed Google Books search method. We have to have an objective way of deciding this, otherwise the edit war will just continue but in a far more time-wasting way than ever.
--Naturalistic (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Allisgod that the google books idea is not a reliable or objective method. Also, as Jack said at the start, BOTH parties will just have to stomach some compromise and I think that is precisely what has been lacking when two people arrogantly think they are totally right and the other is totally wrong in their view and both refuse to budge. That is what this dispute is about and until they BOTH climb down from that position then no amount of "mediation" is going to help. At the end of the day, you are both going to have to find a way to incorporate both views in the same article. Sorry but that's my ten cents. Peter morrell 10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here is a potential compromise. Naturalistic, I see you feel that your Google Books method is a good one and should be used; however, Allisgod has disagreed - we need to find a way to reach a compromise. I am sure we all agree that any conclusion we reach here cannot overrule a wider consensus - if there is already a policy or guideline in place, or if the community has spoken about something, we can't agree to go against that. Therefore, I suggest we open this particular issue up to wider community participation, through an RfC, and then accept whatever the result of that RfC is. We can propose a number of methods to the community, including Naturalistic's Google Books method and adopt whatever the consensus turns out to be. We will need to come up with a number of alternative methods for determining how much weight to give any one particular viewpoint in an article, and then offer them to the community. Does that sound ok? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with that and I'm ready for compromise, that's why I came for help. Hopefully in the end these articles are more accurate and more informative. Allisgod (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Perhaps we can start to develop a few proposals that we could take to the community. How do you think we should determine how much coverage a particular viewpoint will get in an article? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My view has been 1) limit sources to experts of theology and philosophy; 2) prioritize expert sources who are discussed/sourced by several other expert sources. Allisgod (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and how would you determine who is an expert in philosophy and theology? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Possession of a doctoral degree in philosophy or theology. Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that all? Will you make any allowances for potential bias or agendas? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I think priority should be given to non advocates of pantheism (encyclopedias, proponents of other views). Direct advocates of pantheism should be added with caution due to bias. Allisgod (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, so at the moment we have two proposals to take two the community:

1. A Google Books search with the term "naturalistic pantheism" (with quotes) is made, on its own, and then containing various concepts and thinkers related to it. The proportion of books that remain in the results after the concept or thinker is included will determine how much coverage that concept or thinker will receive in the article. The same will be done for "pantheism".
2. Sources from experts in philosophy and/or theology (those with a doctoral degree) will be used to determine how much coverage particular concepts or thinkers will have in the article, with priority given to sources which are referenced in other sources. Priority will be given to writers who are not proponents of any form of pantheism.

Firstly, does that fairly represent the two views we currently have? Second, are there any alternative methods that could be used? And could you both confirm that you are happy to take this to the community through the use of an RfC, the results of which we will stick to, as I outlined above? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me as long as we can include our counterpoints against these positions to the community. The Google Books results method is completely flawed. Allisgod (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You will be entitled to an opinion, just as anyone else is - you can make whatever comments you like once the RfC starts. It'd be good to wait for Naturalistic though - I am aware that he's not yet had been able to give his opinion about a possible RfC, so I'd like to wait for him before we progress. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Several points here:

1. It seems to me important and useful that this is a MEDIATION between two editors in conflict aimed at producing a sustainable compromise or agreement between those two editors. Mediation means arriving at either an agreed solution or an agreed compromise. It's not an arbitration aimed at imposing a solution, or at bringing in the fairly random set of editors who might drop by in an RfC so as to arrive at a judgment. Am I correct Jack?
   
2. I may be wrong, but my guess is that even if we arrive at a set of criteria we will still disagree over individual sources in exactly the same way we have been doing so far. In the above argument over RS criteria each side is advancing suggestions that will produce results that favor their own viewpoint. That's why I think we need to move to one of the specific questions now.
   
3. Jack, Your second proposed question above accepts totally what Allisgod says and takes no account of my position. "Priority will be given to writers who are not proponents of any form of pantheism." How about adding: and who are not proponents of rival viewpoints such as theism or panentheism or atheism. I see no reason whatsoever to trust the latter but not the former. However, this list will seriously limit our sources.
   
4. I did not agree that experts/Ph Ds in philosophy or theology should have priority. Experts in philosophy may not be at all familiar with the varied history of Pantheism East and West and may focus on typical academic philosophy issues. Experts in theology are very likely to be theists. A Ph D in theology will have spent at least 6 years studying what is mostly not comparative religion but Christian/Biblical theology and therefore be committed to a theist viewpoint. Such expertise is irrelevant for pantheism and is likely to produce a biased judgment on pantheism.
   
5. A number of sources prominently cited by Allisgod (eg "pantheism is, logically speaking, deterministic" - Coplestone) turn out to be extremely brief comments or asides without any expansion or proof. I don't think that brief asides qualify as reliable sources on what Pantheism is about.
6. I do agree regarding encyclopedias, at least the ones with reasonably extended entries by experts, and which do not have a blatant bias (as for example. J. H. Worman in the Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature.)
7. As for what constitutes reliable sources in general, there are several Wikipedia policy and manual pages on that subject developed by many editors over long periods and we should be consulting those pages - I can't see the need for further consultation.
   
8. I have tested the Google Books search method to destruction in many different ways and it is not flawed. I can demonstrate this at length with much more evidence on specific examples, eg Naturalistic Pantheism. Allisgod's statement that Google searches for related terms and adds those results just is not valid. If it were doing so, then why would it not also boost the number or results related to Tillich or determinism? Allisgod resists this method because the results it produces do not favor his positions, even though the method is not applied in any biased way that could produce biased results. If we do not use this method, we will continue to wallow in rival citations (all of them RS by Wikipedia criteria) without any way of resolving which ones should be preferred.
   
9. I do not agree to the above questions - or even a modified version of them - being put to RfC at this point.
   
10. We could spend forever in this section and based on what has been said so far I don't see an agreement emerging which would provide a basis on which to proceed to the other questions. What I suggest is that we should start with one of those questions as a test-bed to see if compromise can be reached. It's conceivable that we may be able to reach a compromise on content, which is the purpose of this mediation. I really believe we should try it. We can always return to this section if need be.
    

Here is the test about Naturalistic Pantheism. I will place the search terms between brackets.
Searches:

1. ("naturalistic pantheism") 1860 results
2. ("naturalistic pantheism" +"naturalistic pantheism") 1860 results
3. ("naturalistic pantheism" -"naturalistic pantheism") 10 results
   

Meaning:

1. 1860 books contain the phrase "naturalistic pantheism"
2. When you add a + in front the book MUST contain that phrase. All 1860 do contain the phrase.
3. When you add a - in front the book MUST NOT contain that phrase. It gives a result of 10 - obviously an anomaly perhaps due to an extra space between the words or some typographic particulars. If you look at these 10 in detail however every single one does contain the phrase "naturalistic pantheism".
   

So, out of the 1860 results, every single one does contain the phrase.
If Allisgod's suggestion that Google broadens the search were correct, there would be a significant number of valid results for the search ("naturalistic pantheism" -"naturalistic pantheism"). In fact there are none.
--Naturalistic (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

At least other people are witnessing what I've been dealing with. Mountains of stubborn old words that say the same thing over and over.

Look, "paul harrison" +"pantheism" gets 802 results. You've been sourced by 802 books, huh? Almost all of the results are from titles with original publication dates over a half a century old. Even Spinoza's books came up in the results. You are not just a "world expert", you are a time traveler! All hail world expert time traveler Harrison! Allisgod (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod, if you do a straight Google search for (+"Paul Harrison" pantheism OR pantheist) you get 685 results and my name is highlighted in the Google thumbnail, and they are all about me and Pantheism. There are more results than that - once you get to page 69 and click (show omitted results that are similar) you get another 25 pages before the links start to look less related. Total: at least 900 results about Paul Harrison = me, and Pantheism.

I accept that the Google Books results are not large (see below for more on Google Books searches).

Your personal comments have no evidential value and simply reflect upon your own unwillingness to face the issues I raised. the points I have made. You need to answer my points, not dismiss them as "Mountains of stubborn old words that say the same thing over and over."

There are other points there besides the Google Books point - viz my points 3, 4, 5 and 6.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I might make a few comments, and please tell me if I can't, I would say I agree with Naturalistic's points 4 and 8 above, and that nitpicking over the alleged neutrality and reliability of sources is going to probably be a continuing, if not endless, source of friction. Yet, I would also say that the making of personal attacks, such as made above by Allisgod, are not going to bring the two opposing sides any closer to making a viable and friendly compromise. I quite like the google search idea in principle, but as Allisgod has said, it does seem to throw up some pretty random connections that are maybe not specific enough. I would agree with Naturalistic that having a PhD in Theology cannot really be considered as conferring any reliable 'expert status' on a writer in this field. So things would seem to still have a long way to go yet. Peter morrell 13:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am trying my best to demonstrate to him how flawed the Google Book search is. Granted I am also having some fun at his expense, but I have tried to explain this to him several times and he just hears himself talk and wastes my time and everybody's time. Allisgod (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't hear anyone else laughing at this "fun" except yourself. It would be easy to follow your example. However, this mediation is not the place for that.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I understand that. I guess you both get very frustrated with the other. Peter morrell 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic, I appreciate that you do not agree completely with the positions I outlined above, which is why I said that I wanted your input too (as you said, this needs to be an agreement between the both of you). I would still like to know if putting this decision to an RfC seems like a good idea to you (perhaps not exactly as the proposals are now, but in some form). Does that sound reasonable? As you said, the two of you have very different viewpoint which has make it difficult for you to work together; that is why it might be useful to get some outside input, to help find a solution which is supported by the community. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Putting any question to an RfC at this point does not seem like a good idea because that changes the character of this process away from being a mediation.

We have not gotten even remotely close to agreement on any points relating to what sources to prioritize, and I don't think we will.

Allisgod is stressing points that elevate the sources that back his narrow view of Pantheism as deterministic and Spinoza-focused.

He wants to downgrade sources that are "promoting pantheism" (how would you judge that? Beyond my own book Elements of Pantheism what other books do that?)

He wants to upgrade/accept sources that are promoting Theism and Panenetheism and are critical of pantheism.

He wants to prioritize certain types of Ph Ds that suit his version of pantheism (classical, deterministic, God-centered).

Why don't we do what I suggested and try to see if we could reach an agreement or at least a compromise on a couple of the specific questions, starting with the Naturalistic Pantheism article? I don't see that there's anything to lose by that, and I don't see that doing that favors either of us. It does move us onwards.
--Naturalistic (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

REVISED GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH METHOD:
I tried doing what Allisgod did above (looking through all the pages resulting from a search and seeing at what page they cease to relate directly and cease to contain the phrase).
I am quite ready to acknowledge that I found the same as he found. It does seem that only 32 pages contain books that actually include the phrase "Naturalistic Pantheism" indeed 7 of those pages have results that, if you search the book itself, you can't find the phrase in the book itself. Google seems in additon to be offering books (eg by Alan Watts, or about the Stoics) on topics that other people have described as being Naturalistic Pantheist, even if those books do not themselves contain that expression.
However, Allisgod's approach does not preclude using the Google Books search approach in modified form.
Actually it offers a more accurate way of doing it. It IS possible to research at what number of results the results start to NOT include the phrase "naturalistic pantheism" and to compare different terms to see what their total results are by this method.
Doing it this way we have naturalistic pantheism with 32 total pages, ceasing to contain the phrase after page 25 of the results. So we can say that this phrase is used in approx 250 books.
Doing the same for "Classical Pantheism" we get just 11 pages of which only 9 pages have sources actually contain the phrase. So roughly 90 (rounding up).
What that means is that "Naturalistic Pantheism" has 178% more books that use the phrase, than does "Classical Pantheism," and that's using Allisgod's own method. Moreover, approximately half of those pages do not contain the name Hartshorne, and so may well be using the word in a different way (eg classical Rome and Greece).
Relating that to our topics, I think it's fair to conclude that there is no justification whatsoever for including Classical Pantheism on the Pantheism page and NOT including Naturalistic Pantheism.
Please note that I am NOT proposing to remove Classical Pantheism. I am proposing that we should include both. Including both is the neutral way. Persistently deleting one is not neutral.
When we get down to questions like inclusion of Tillich or determinism in the Naturalistic Pantheism article, the task gets much easier because there are only 60-70 total results and it becomes feasible to look at each one individually to see if Naturalistic Pantheism is actually in there. NB there's no disagreement about using the Tillich source - our disagreement relates to interpreting what the cited paragraph means in relation to the definition of the term Naturalistic Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to summarize the basic differences that have emerged in this first section, as I see them.
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES ON ACCEPTABLE SOURCES BY NATURALISTIC

ISSUE	Allisgod	Naturalistic
Basic approach	Definition, as derived from allowable academic sources	Usage, based on full spectrum of pantheist varieties
Viewpoint of sources allowed	Academic. Critical sources allowed, incl. Christian, theist, panentheist	All allowed. Many serious and valuable books on religions are written by members of that religion
Viewpoints not allowed	Pro-Pantheist	All allowed but extra care needed with comments by committed opponents/critics of Pantheism
Credentials of sources	Priority to Ph Ds in philosophy or theology	All allowed including independent researchers like Plumptre
Ways of assessing importance of concepts and alleged best sources	Viewpoint of scholars claimed by Allisgod to be crucial	Objective: Google books search and counting of number/percentage of references (raw figures corrected by direct examination of actual results)

-Naturalistic (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I reject all of the above nonsense. Allisgod (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not an answer nor even a rebuttal. The improved search method incorporates your own objections. The table incorporates things you have actually said.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems there is still very little evidence of common ground and no sign of BOTH sides showing flexibility or willingness to compromise. These are not good signs. However, at least Naturalistic is willing to make suggestions, even if they are rebuffed in toto by Allisgod. Maybe Allisgod could now make some suggestions on how to move out of this impasse? I would also ask both parties to explain, in simple terms, what Naturalistic Pantheism is, how it can be distinguished from Pantheism and why the word Naturalistic was chosen? thanks Peter morrell 05:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism is a word that has historically been identified with Spinoza's specific philosophy. Sources call him the prince, the prophet, and the father of pantheism and he is mentioned foremost in encyclopedic material about pantheism. Spinoza identified God with Nature (as in natural laws) and the word Nature is prominent in his work. The term "naturalistic pantheism" in scholarly work is most often referring to Spinoza-style pantheism, i.e. natural law pantheism (God=natural laws). Pantheism is a broad term that incorporates other, non-Spinoza styles of pantheism, so scholars often want to be more specific about what they are talking about when using the term pantheism. Allisgod (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted this in the wrong section yesterday, so you probably missed it (sorry!). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Naturalistic, using an RfC is quite a common step in mediation, as it helps to provide a solution to a dispute. If the two of you really can't agree, an RfC might be the best course to take, as it will give us a clear direction to go in; however, we'll only do that if you agree too. Nevertheless, if we can reach an agreement on this point without an RfC, then it will not be necessary. Your alternative proposal looks like a good start - I see you are willing to compromise on this point and have dealt with some of Allisgod's concerns. Allisgod, does the alternative proposed by Naturalistic seem reasonable to you? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

To continue from what I said, Allisgod, some compromise will be necessary in this process. Naturalistic has presented a compromise position - instead of rejecting it all as nonsense, why don't you go through the revised proposal and tell us what you think might work, and what needs fixing? If mediation is going to resolve this issue you both need to be able to compromise, which means looking at what other people propose and see what might be acceptable. We might not end up with your very first choice, but we need to come to something that you can both live with and commit to maintaining. Is there anything in Naturalistic's proposal that seems reasonable - is it better than his original? What would you like to see improved so that it would be acceptable to you? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest that if Alligod finds any part of my table inaccurately represents his position, he should say which part, and what his actual position is. If he finds my modified search method flawed, he should say why and suggest improvements. The only alternative to that search method is to trade claims that "the best authorities say . . . " and each of us has his own claims there with good individual sources to back them - and this is what we have been doing in the edit war.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem I'm having here gentlemen is naturalistic is taking over the role of mediator and trying to frame the debate in a way that best suits his interests. The above "nonsense" table is simply full of biased language and inaccurate distinctions and I don't believe it is appropriate for the subject of a mediation to be the person framing the debate. I think a moderator is the person who should be summarizing the debate not a ridiculously biased subject of mediation. I can answer all of naturalistic's comments if that's what is requested of me, but that will take time (and it seems like a waste of time). Where is the mediation? The subject of mediation is currently overwhelming this page with his content and taking the debate wherever he wants it to go while unreasonably rejecting community input, rejecting any kind of limitations to Wikipedia content, and continuing to push Google search absurdities. I gave a one sentence response out of frustration at the mediator for allowing this because I don't like to waste my time if this person is going to just run all over the mediator and turn himself into the mediator. Allisgod (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll add some substantive responses:

• I completely reject Google Book search methods. I have already demonstrated its flaws. Furthermore, all sources are not to be treated equal and those methods assume all sources are equal.
• the Naturalistic Pantheism page needs to be corrected and cleaned up before discussing its mention in the Pantheism page
• after the page is corrected, its mention on the Pantheism page will likely be appropriate
• the above "summary" of our differences should be removed. A subject of mediation should not be framing all of the issues in the way he desires and (incorrectly) summarizing sides to suit his interest in reframing the debate and its issues. Allisgod (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

1. The revised method incorporates ways to deal with the flaws pointed out by Allisgod. It gets beyond subjective valuations of the most important sources, which we have been throwing at each other since this started. Without this method we will just continue to throw different quotes and sources at each other.
   
2. The content of the Pantheism page is part of this mediation, as well as the content of the Naturalistic Pantheism page. Allisgod appears to be insisting on his own personal definition of Naturalistic Pantheism being accepted before he will allow the concept is mentioned in the Pantheism page.
   
3. Allisgod is not the owner and sole guardian of the Pantheism page though he has been acting as if he is. What Allisgod is saying above is that he will allow Naturalistic Pantheism into the Pantheism page only when it precisely coincides with his own limited analysis, in which Pantheism, Classical Pantheism and Naturalistic Pantheism all mean the same thing: determinism plus Spinoza, Spinoza and more Spinoza.
   
4. I have retitled the summary table to make it plain it is by me. In my opinion it is accurate and essential and it is not a put-down or a calling of names. What it says about Allisgod's positions are statements that Allisgod has actually made. It is also useful - otherwise people would have to read through every word of this long exchange to find out what our differing stances are on sources. If Allisgod doesn't like it, he can create his own version or suggest corrections to mine.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Allisgod, and I appreciate your concerns. I am aware that the two positions you each gold are very different; I hoped that we might be able to find some common ground on this issue (and we have all agreed that reliable sources should be used to determine how much coverage we give things, which is a start). If you find that Naturalistic hasn't presented your view well that's ok - we will only work from what you both agree to. Can I ask both of you: do you think that a compromise between your two positions is possible? How could we go about achieving a compromise, or managing if one can't be reached? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ON COMPROMISE VERSUS INFLEXIBILITY

Before the nest stage starts I would like to point out that I already did a lot of compromising re the Pantheism page, whereas Allisgod did not.

I would like to point out that Allisgod's "owning" of the Pantheism page has been quite different from the period when I was the most frequent editor, and way less flexible. For more than a month now Allisgod has deleted, undone or reverted every single change I have made to the Pantheism page. He is guarding it and the current version reflects entirely his preference. Moreover he attempted to get the entire Naturalistic Pantheism page deleted. Now that's failed he wants to rewrite it so it's identical with Classical Pantheism.

He will say the same of me, however for the record I would like to point out that I already did a lot of compromising:

• I allowed into the Pantheism page a section on determinism and Classical Pantheism created by him.
  
• He kept pushing determinism to the top of the categories and I kept demoting it below theistic/atheistic, I finally gave up though IU do not agree with his positioning.
  
• I made no attempt to restore references to my own book Elements of Pantheism.
  
• I went along with the moving of World Pantheist Movement from recent history to Pantheist organizations.
  
• I did not oppose the resurrection of the Classical Pantheism page when he created a better version of it.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NEXT STEP
Once again I would like to propose that we proceed to look at the Naturalistic Pantheism article to see if a compromise can be reached there, taking this as a test case of the approaches already discussed in this current section.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate that you have made compromises, Naturalistic, but it is unhelpful to just accuse Allisgod of ownership, etc - even if you think it is true, it takes us off topic and moves the discussion away from the content we are trying to deal with. The point of mediation is to find a solution which can be agreed to so that the conduct issues are not a problem any more. We could move on to the next issue, but I have a feeling that, without dealing with this first, we won't get anywhere. Your two points of view are very different - if we start looking at how much coverage the WPM should have on the Pantheism article and we haven't found a solution to how much coverage anything should be given on any article, we'll hit the same problems. We did agree at the start that this section would take a long time because it is very important to the rest of the case. Can I ask both of you: how much of the other person's view is acceptable to you, and how much of your own view would you be willing to concede in order to achieve an agreement? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand why you say the above, Jack, but actually with respect it's not off topic, because it's important to understand that the current starting point of the Pantheism article ALREADY incorporated several highly significant compromises by me with Allisgod's positions, and that since early August (since when I was less involved there) he pushed the article much further in his own direction while deleting, undoing and reverting any attempt by me to get a fair balance.

If there is to be a compromise, therefore, 'I don't really have many concessions left to make because I already made them' and Allisgod has made hardly any.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept some coverage of various modern viewpoints from secondary sources. I prefer the Wikipedia pages have more information, not less. However, I am not willing to accept prominent placement of those views that do not come from scholars. When it comes to definitions and history there are many academic expert sources available. There is no reason to resort to citing non experts for any controversial material. So I am willing to compromise in allowing some limited material from non expert first party sources, but those sources should not be used for any kind of definitions or history. They should be limited to uncontroversial facts (so and so organization exists and calls itself this etc.). We still must have agreed limitations in what kind of sources are allowed for both controversial and non controversial information for definitions and history. Allisgod (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I accept that academic sources are significant and should be used - however if they are coming from people with theology Ph Ds they may have a significant theist and anti-pantheist bias. I do not agree that the definition of Pantheism or Naturalistic Pantheism should be decided by people who are critics of Pantheism or Naturalistic Pantheism.

I accept that "There is no reason to resort to citing non experts for any controversial material." However I do not accept the idea that philosophy and theology Ph Ds should take precedence as experts. Historians and biographers, classical scholars and orientalists, experts in studies of various cultures may be just as valid and significant and may know more about the history of individual authors or movements than do philosophers and theologians. Plus as I said independent researchers such as Plumptre (who as far as I know had no Ph D in anything) are valuable.

We have disagreements about the standing of particular scholars. I do not accept Allisgod's subjective statements that this or that scholar is more significant than others. Without some objective measures like the Google Books search, how could we get beyond just bald statements at each other: "This guy is the most significant" v. "No he isn't"?--Naturalistic (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A doctorate is an objective measure. Limiting to certain kinds of publishers is an objective measure. Searching all books and treating them equally through a Google search is not acceptable by any measure by anybody but you and no amount of underlining your words is going to change that. If you have a more reasonable measure put one forward but the Google Book search is never going to be a measure. It is just a tool to locate sources. Allisgod (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Several sources currently (eg Plumptre, Worman) cited in the Pantheism article do not have doctorates in anything. Plumptre (no Ph D) wrote the most extensive history of pantheism in existence. In many cases we will not even know whether a certain author has a Ph D or not, and if so in what subject.

Limiting to certain kinds of publishers? Did you mention this criterion before? How would you limit it? How would one decide, in relation to defunct publishers?

Underlining one's key points is very useful - I wish you would do it too. It saves us searching back through 9000 words of plain type and having to read everything again to find what's been said.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

One more note: Suggesting taking out expert critics of a subject from defining the subject is pretty ridiculous. Is that really what you are saying? If anything, a critic is better qualified to defining a subject than a proponent. Also, all theologians and philosophers who are not pantheists can be considered "critics" - so that would be just about every scholar who has defined pantheism or naturalistic pantheism. Allisgod (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism was created by pantheists like the Stoics, Bruno and Spinoza. It was given its name in Latin by a mathematician (Raphson) and in English by a wide-ranging writer researcher (Toland). No scholars or Ph Ds were involved in shaping the philosophy or its name.

Scholars writing about pantheism attempt - based on writers who have been called pantheists - to define what's characteristic about pantheism. Critics like Hartshorne or Tillich have very very clear ulterior motives for disparaging Pantheism in order to boost their own theories and to show that Panentheism is superior. There's no valid reason to accept their oversimplifications as definitive of Pantheism or Naturalistic Pantheism. And to exclude anyone who favors Pantheism - as Allisgod has suggested - is very bizarre.

It's very strange to include only theologians or philosophers and I can't see any justification for that. A classical scholar will be far more expert about Stoicism than a philosopher or theologian. A biographer will know far more about Spinoza than a a philosopher or theologian.

Note bene that I am not suggesting excluding philosophers or theologians. I am suggesting broadening the sources while still remaining with reliable sources. Allisgod is the one suggesting an extremely limited range of subject expertise, publishers and qualifications.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both or giving your positions. I have a possible compromise: For each viewpoint, we will report just what the people in the sources say (so, for example, instead of "Spinoza was a classical pantheist", we'd write "Person X argues that Spinoza was a classical pantheist"). That does not wed the article to any specific viewpoint, and just reports on what other people have said. We then need to decide whose opinions to report and whose to leave out: ideally, we would use sources from experts who are published by a reliable publisher. However, in the past, the two of you have found it difficult to agree on which sources are reliable and which are not; therefore, whenever we struggle to reach an agreement about a source, we take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask for wider community participation, and then accept what is decided there. I hope this is acceptable to you: I think should deal with Allisgod's concerns that indiscriminately searching Google Books will not separate reliable sources from unreliable sources, and it also solves Naturalistic's concern that using specific sources will give a biased view because every significant viewpoint we find will be described. This is quite different from what you have both previously offered, and it does mean that we might spend a lot of time at the RSN determining which sources are acceptable; however, I hope that it will resolve the problems you've had with each others' ideas, and also give us a more objective way to discuss the use of sources. What do you think? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I have never suggested using my Google Book search method as a way of locating any old sources for indiscriminate use in the article, nor as a way of establishing which sources are reliable.

It is a way of testing claims that this author or that concept is significant for Pantheism or Naturalistic Pantheism.

I suggest that we both follow Wikipedia guidelines on RS - it seems to me just a matter of pure luck which editors show up at any particular discussion, they are usually few in number so the decisions are highly variable. If we hit a brick wall in any particular case, we could consider it then. As far as I am concerned I prefer the path of mediation first - going beyond the mediation becomes a different procedure, more like an arbitration. That may eventually be necessary but I would prefer to see how we get on with dealing with specifics and consider external arbiters as a last resort.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious we can go on arguing forever about what kind of sources are supposed to be considered reliable, and which, among these, are the best sources.
In general, Allisgod's criteria for degrees, subject qualifications, and viewpoints are extremely limited and can only result in an artificial reduction of the scope of the Pantheism article to the detriment of coverage and information quality for readers.
To repeat my position, I am willing to accept that Ph Ds should be preferred, and that the subject of the Ph D should have some relevance to Pantheism or its history in various regions of the world.
I am unwilling to accept that Ph Ds in theology and philosophy should be given priority over classical scholars or oriental scholars or biographers or respected independent researchers like Plumptre.
I am unwilling to accept that critics of Pantheism should be given higher priority than people who favor pantheism or have a neutral viewpoint.

I would suggest, once again, that we will never reach the end of this debate in the abstract on what sources are acceptable. We have already expended 9000 words on this subject. I am not ready to have an even more extended debate on RSN in the abstract.
Once again I would like to suggest that we see what progress can be made by tackling a specific article, viz Naturalistic Pantheism. It's pretty darned short, and looking at it will show us whether - when we come to the concrete matter we have to deal with - we can reach agreement.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In the above, you talk about a "path to mediation" on the one hand and reject everything the mediator suggests or tries to do on the other. The mediator is correct in attempting to lay out rules prior to the editing of articles. Most of these "9000" words on this page belong to you, resisting everything the mediator has offered and insisting on your own way. Your position is what, all sources are equally important? If not, what is your criteria in limiting sources? Rejecting "critics of pantheism" is not going to happen. Almost every single source can be considered a critic of pantheism. I will not reject proponents of pantheism if you will stop with the suggestion of rejecting critics. But that still leaves all sources without any limitations.

On the subject of philosophy and theology vs. history and classical studies, I will suggest two categories - one is the history of pantheism, the other is the definition of pantheism. Pantheism is an abstract philosophical and theological concept and its definitions should be given by experts of philosophy and theology. The history of pantheism, however, can and should include historians. Fair? Allisgod (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's highly inaccurate to say I have resisted everything the mediator suggested. The mediator has made it plain that in this mediation everything depends on mutual agreement. The only thing I think is premature is reference to other editors, because this is supposed to be a mediation between you and me, not an arbitration with a judgment. If it goes external with compulsory acceptance of "consensus", it becomes an arbitration probably favoring one side or the other (don't forget it may go against you just as well as against me). By nature it could only be limited and could not possibly cover every future source. That would still leave our basic conflicts unresolved and with every likelihood of the edit war continuing.
What matters most in ending this conflict is compromise or agreement between you and me. That's my ideal outcome here. Going external seems a bit like giving up, and should be reserved for issues where we hit a complete impasse.

If you read my posts you will see that I accept priority for Ph Ds in principle. It should not be theologians and philosophers, but historians, and classical and oriental scholars also. Like I said accurately in my table, you are concerned with "definition," which tends to produce a limited viewpoint, whereas I am concerned with usage, which tends to involve the major ways in which a term has been used.
Regarding the definition my preference would be not for this or that individual scholar, but for entries in highly respected encyclopedias, both generic and for philosophy or religion. For my money the best for Pantheism is in the Encyclopedia Britannica, where the article is by William L. Dreese, Ph D, philosophy professor, and Hartshorne's collaborator in philosophers Speak of God. Surely you can't object to that? It fills all your criteria, and Dreese is aware of the different varieties of Pantheism and does not attempt to reduce it to one variety or to a definition that excludes some systems universally accepted as pantheisms. Dreese also produced his own Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion with a good Pantheism entry.
Once we go beyond such very general sources, then our very choice of one source over another becomes original research (OR) and the definition we end up with is our own. In the case of Naturalistic Pantheism, we may not find such a definition in an encyclopedia, so in that case the question becomes doing a definition that covers the broad range of definitions that have been used by reliable sources.

The above are issues that will arise in covering the individual articles, that's why I keep suggesting over and over that we break this theoretical impasse by dealing with an individual article.
--Naturalistic (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you are referring to William Reese and yes, he is an excellent source that goes into great detail to pick apart pantheism. I'm surprised you would bring him up given that he states that time is illusory for "most" forms of pantheism while you have seemed to resist that perspective. Anyway, you use the phrase "reliable sources" above but we have not come to a consensus about what that means. I do not accept that a degree in history and related degrees qualifies someone to create a specific category of a philosophical and theological concept. That is the job of a philosopher or theologian. If there's a historian source that discusses the phrase from a historic perspective, that would be useful. But as far as I know, that doesn't exist. I just don't see how you can justify a non-philosopher/theologian being qualified for creating categories of pantheism. Allisgod (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was not talking specifically about creating categories - more about the general definition section, where I would prefer to see the most authoritative encyclopedias prioritized over any individual scholar.
Yes I mean Reese, typo. He says that "most but not all" forms of Pantheism state that time is illusory. Therefore it's not legitimate to say anything that suggest that illusory time is a compulsory part of Pantheism. Personally I believe time does not exist, though change does exist.

Ok, it seems like we're struggling to agree on a general way to determine how much coverage a single concept/philosopher should get in any given article. I am happy to move on to discussing the next points as outlined above; however, I am conscious that this will only deal with the individual issues and not give us a framework for any future disputes that arise. When we manage to find agreement, that is fantastic; do you think we could come up with a method for dealing with issues which agreement cannot be made? Perhaps we could agree that, when a particular issue has become unresolvable between the two of you, we will ask for outside opinions, but only do so when discussion amongst ourselves makes it very clear that an agreement will not be reached? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if it's very clear that we really can't reach agreement, we should ask for outside opinions.

I would also suggest that if we can "live with" changes created by the other, or change strongly requested by the other with good reasons, we should do so. We should only object if it seems distinctly against the interests of accuracy, neutrality, information to readers, and Wikipedia policies on OR, RS, POV etc.
I have followed that approach in accepting changes of Allisgod's (plus the entire Classical Pantheism article) that I don't particularly like, but can "live with."

• I allowed into the Pantheism page a section on determinism and Classical Pantheism created by him.
  
• I gave up on moving determinism away from the top of the categories, though I do not agree with his positioning.
  
• I gave up on restoring references to my own book Elements of Pantheism.
  
• I went along with the moving of World Pantheist Movement from recent history to Pantheist organizations.
  
• I accepted the resurrection of the Classical Pantheism page when Allisgod created a better version of it.

It would be nice if Allisgod could see his way to some similar concessions.--Naturalistic (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Including the importance of determinism, freedom, time and related concepts to pantheism is not a concession. It was simply missing from the article. As for "classical pantheism", the importance of that concept has diminished with less of your "scientific pantheism" ideas all over the page. I have no problem with referencing your book for non controversial material about pantheist history. WPM info being in the articles however is controversial to me and a concession. My general feeling is you seem to think that people who call themselves pantheists have the right for equal say in a Wikipedia article. That would be like any Christian with any views (even a mistaken popular view) having equal say in defining Christianity as a theologian who is expert of the Bible. Allisgod (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that we are able to move on then, which is great. We will now go through the rest of the issues which we agreed to early on in the mediation and try to reach an agreement about those. Once we've got through all of those, we will re-evaluate where we are, make sure we'll be able to deal with future issues, and then we'll be done. For each issue, we will engage in discussion, using all relevant sources and policies, until we find an agreement. If it is obvious that an agreement on one particular issue is impossible, we will ask for outside input (the forum we choose will depend on the issue). Also, as much as I appreciate both of your willingness to make concessions, it might be easier if we don't look at the mediation from that perspective. We are all on the same side, working to the same goal - making these articles the best that they can be. We might have to let some of our ideas go in the process, but the goal is good quality articles which can be agreed to, rather than winning concessions. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How much and what kind of coverage the World Pantheist Movement should have on the Naturalistic pantheism article

This is the next issue to deal with in this mediation. I will ask for opening remarks here - please just give your own opinion on this specific issue, without mentioning anyone else. Please keep your opening comments to no more than 200 words. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the uses of the phrase "naturalistic pantheism" from all of the past citations suggests that the World Pantheist Movement is using the phrase in their own way that has little to do with how anybody else has used that phrase. In fact, they use it in the opposite way of how others have used the phrase. In doing so, I find their use of that phrase not to be notable for the article on Naturalistic pantheism.

The current Wikipedia edited page, for example, cites philosopher Quentin Smith on its first citation with a very brief and incomplete account of how he views the phrase. Yet, he is precise saying that naturalistic pantheism, "implies that all is holy and that all ways of living are in accordance with the holy or “the divine,” both good ways of living and morally bad ways of living because each thing, no matter how it lives, is just as much a constituent of the holy as any other thing. Levine’s pantheism is nonnatural because the holy is identified with a morally good order rather than with the natural universe.”

Meanwhile the current Wikipedia page cites the World Pantheist Movement home page which does not even use the phrase "naturalistic pantheism", and instead describes a belief of supporting environmental causes, the scientific method, and so on, which has little to do with how others have used the phrase. In fact, accor

ding to philosopher Smith, their viewpoint is actually non-naturalistic because they clearly view oil spills, for example, as morally bad. That citation is just the tip of the iceberg.

[As an aside, and with all due respect, I would suggest that this organization, instead of fighting for notability of this phrase as they define it, when clearly past uses of the phrase do not represent their views, should go back to their old phrase "Scientific pantheism". Personally, I doubt their beliefs are either pantheism or scientific, but at least it is clearly a newly invented phrase rather than a phrase that has been used to describe an opposing viewpoint.] Allisgod (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The above summary is 345 words not 200, so I will take a little longer as well.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod has a strong bias against The World Pantheist Movement, which has colored his editing ever since he started editing the Wikipedia Pantheism articles. He has a strong bias against the term Naturalistic Pantheism, and attempted to get the article deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_August_27#Naturalistic_pantheism
Notability of the World Pantheist Movement
The World Pantheist Movement is the largest Pantheist organization in the world. Its website is the top result for "Pantheism" in search engines after Wikipedia (usually top in web searches). It’s second and third after Wikipedia on Google out of 1.16 million results. Second and fourth on Bing out of 6.6 million results. This is an extraordinary level of search dominance. Such positions are won by the site’s reputation and usefulness for searchers. This placement is higher than any Christian church for Christianity, Jewish organization for Judaism or Moslem organization for Islam.
Place of naturalism in the World Pantheist Movement.
Our use of the term Naturalistic Pantheism results from a straightforward combination of the separate meanings of the words naturalistic and pantheism. That combination is the reason why almost all sources use the phrase in the same way.

• The word naturalistic is mentioned five times on the front page http://www.pantheism.net.
  
• Strong naturalism is prominently mentioned as one of the six key factors in our beliefs:
  

"Strong naturalism - without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces."

The phrase Naturalistic Pantheism is also mentioned prominently on our Statement of Principles page http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm and our page on naturalism: http://www.pantheism.net/natural.htm
We use the term naturalism in its normal philosophical sense:

"the view that everything (objects and events) is a part of nature, an all-encompassing world of space and time. It implies a rejection of traditional beliefs in supernatural beings or other entities supposedly beyond the reach of science" (Dictionary of Philosophy ed Mautner).

The World Pantheist Movement does NOT use the terms naturalism or naturalistic in the sense of nature reverence, contrary to what Allisgod alleges. In the WPM pages reverence for Nature and the Universe are always mentioned as a separate matter from naturalism.
The Quentin Smith citation
Regarding Quentin Smith my summary of Smith's view is perfectly accurate:

"naturalistic pantheism . . implies that all is holy. . Each thing, no matter how it lives, is just as much a constituent of the holy as any other thing." [Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language p229-230]

Smith contrasts this with "nonnatural pantheism" in which "the Existence of the Universe is not identical with the natural universe." So he also closely fits the third phrase used in my intro.
--Naturalistic (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I want to rephrase my answer to this question more succinctly. For the World Pantheist Movement to be covered in the article on Naturalistic Pantheism, we need an expert to identify their beliefs as “naturalistic pantheism”. Google search engine results prove nothing. The website’s use of the phrase proves nothing. Further, the definitions of separate words like naturalism and pantheism are not even relevant to the discussion and lead to original research material. Allisgod (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's completely absurd to say that Google search engine results prove nothing, whereas a single sentence by someone with a Ph D on theology who may have got his facts wrong proves everything.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So to summarise: Naturalistic would like to see mention of the WPM in the naturalistic pantheism article, and Allisgod would be happy for that to happen if a reliable source directly links the WPM to naturalistic pantheism. Is that a correct summary of each of your views (if very brief)? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think one needs to add to that summary the point that I would like to see the World Pantheist Movement included

• because of its notability,
• because the WPM website itself is an overwhelmingly dominant source of information on Pantheism
• because written books and scholarly journals take years or decades to catch up with the Internet realities that inform most people today

If you want a book source, Elements of Pantheism by Paul Harrison (me) directly links the World Pantheist Movement to naturalistic pantheism (p110-111) and is a reliable source about this very simple basic fact.

Websites - even self-published ones - can be used as sources according to Wikipedia policy on reliable sources - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves - which also applies to my book Elements of Pantheism, though that was published by a large commercial publisher, not self-published.

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
   
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
   
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
   
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
   

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

The World Pantheist Movement site fulfills all of the above requirements, and so does my book Elements of Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a correct summary. As for the above, the website and book's way of using of the phrase "naturalistic pantheism" is "an exceptional claim" from a first party non expert and thus cannot be used as a source for what are controversial claims about the phrase. There are no other sources using the phrase in the way he uses the phrase. Even if there were others who made the same claims (and there are not), I find it "unduly self-serving" to attempt to attribute the phrase to the website/book in question (for promotional purposes) when there are plenty of expert sources available to define the phrase. However, if an expert source attributes "naturalistic pantheism" to the "World Pantheist Movement", I would accept that source. Allisgod (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not an "exceptional claim" or "controversial" - exception to what? Controversial to whom, other than yourself? The World Pantheist Movement's use of the term is extremely similar to prior uses of the term - definitely including Quentin Smith and many many others. You say that the separate meanings of naturalistic and pantheism are irrelevant to what naturalistic pantheism means? That's a pretty surprising claim. We are talking here about two words that have been repeatedly put together to describe pantheisms (including Spinoza's) that focus on the existing universe and nature - rather than on some essence or abstraction as for example in Advaita vedanta.

"There are no other sources." There's no way you have read all the sources to be able to say what you claim. Looking at Google Scholar results for "naturalistic pantheism" 112 out of 115 include the word "nature," 101 include the word "scientific", 98 include the word "science" and 94 include the word "universe." So nature, science and universe are dominant in the journal mentions of Naturalistic Pantheism and 83 out of 115 mention all of these. Compare that with your favorites: 48 mention Spinoza (who is included in the article) but only 28 mention determinism or deterministic and only 9 mention Tillich. These results may be approximate, still they are a good measure of what contexts the phrase is being used in. It's simply indefensible to dismiss them as rubbish or irrelevant, and then to pick on one or two selected favorite sources of yours to prove otherwise.

If you are saying there are no other sources that use the phrase the way the World Pantheist Movement uses it, then you are going to have to prove very clearly what's different about the way the WPM uses it compared to a large selection of sources. You cannot rely on the point that we add this or that to the basic common features - because every naturalistic pantheist thinker has always added some specifics that are not all in common. I have a very large selection of sources to prove that it's very similar. The key element of all the uses is focus on existing things, rather than on pure essences or ideas. The focus on nature and the universe is standard.

It's egregious to claim that any citation of Elements of Pantheism is "for promotional purposes." This is the best selling book on Pantheism out of only three current titles and there's simply no good reason to exclude it. People don't go through Wikipedia footnotes looking for books to buy.
--Naturalistic (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for your replies. As far as I can see, an easy solution to this would be to find a reliable source that links the WPM to naturalistic pantheism. I understand that Naturalistic thinks that this would be superfluous; however, if one can be found, then it would make this much easier. Perhaps we could look at the sources we have and report what they say: if a scholar says that the WPM follows naturalistic pantheism, we can say "X says that..."; if we cannot find a scholar, we can discuss the merits of just saying "the WPM identify themselves as..." Could both of you present any sources you know of which directly link the WPM to naturalistic pantheism? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy professor and Ph D Jerome Stone identifies the World Pantheist Movement's standpoint as naturalism on p 10-11 of Religious Naturalism Today
http://books.google.com/books?id=LZcjzjsXrHMC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=Jerome+Stone+naturalism&source=bl&ots=r2zTusOTUl&sig=xQJykF8_r1-UweXg-usJ__ejCJw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=caVcUMDfCuSQiAK5_4DYCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Paul%20Harrison&f=false
Religion professor and Ph D Bron Taylor identifies it as naturalism on p 159 of Dark Green Religion
http://books.google.com/books?id=wAswiTYwU74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=dark+green+religion&source=bl&ots=AAoQFRkYOh&sig=_RbhDhgL7-ETTrpJP7EKABjHq1E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8aVcULSELuLNiwKDgIHoBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=World%20Pantheist%20Movement&f=false
Thus we have two sources acceptable under Allisgod's very restricted criteria that identify it as naturalistic and both accept its description as pantheist.
--Naturalistic (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Naturalism is not "naturalistic pantheism". Naturalistic pantheism is much more specific a term than naturalism. Allisgod (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said that naturalism is the same as Naturalistic Pantheism. To qualify as Naturalistic Pantheism a philosophy or belief set has to be BOTH naturalistic AND pantheist. The two sources above accept both of these aspects for the World Pantheist Movement.

Any pantheism that is naturalistic is a naturalistic pantheism. It has almost always been used - even by Tillich and Quentin Smith - as a phrase describing a wide range of those pantheisms that consider the Universe, nature or real things as divine, in contrast to idealistic pantheisms that consider the divine to be abstract essence or consciousness.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ItsZippy, in view of Allisgod's last response and other responses of his, it's clear that we will need to discuss the definition of Naturalistic Pantheism and the sources that back our particular views, before we can deal with the question of whether the World Pantheist Movement should be mentioned in this article, or the question of whether Naturalistic Pantheism should be mentioned in the main Pantheism article.
I know that is not one of our listed questions, but clearly it's central to trying to find any solution to many of the other questions.
I would like to propose that we add this question, and that we tackle it first, before coming back to the current question. Or at least that we have a separate heading about the definition of Naturalistic Pantheism, so that the discussion can be easily found and easily edited.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Naturalistic, I am happy to discuss that if you both think it is necessary (Allisgod, please let us know what you think), though we might be able to find a resolution without it. So far, it seems that we've not found a source which explicitly states that "the WPM is a naturalistic pantheist movement"; however, Naturalistic still believes that the WPM should be covered in the relevant article. Allisgod, would you be willing to have any coverage at all of the WPM - perhaps just saying that the WPM calls itself a naturalistic panetheist group, with a source to itself? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

We have in fact found two reliable sources that fit Allisgod's quite restrictive requirements, that say the WPM is both naturalistic and pantheist.

To insist as Allisgod does that this does not show that the WPM is naturalistic pantheist is extremely unreasonable. It's like if a reliable source says "A. has a dog and it is brown" this is not sufficient reason for a Wikipedia article to state that A. has a brown dog. How many humans on this planet would regard that as a logical position?

We also have the World Pantheist Movement website and my book Elements of Pantheism which both state that the World Pantheist Movement promotes naturalistic pantheism. Both can be accepted under Wikipedia policy for non-exceptional claims. But Allisgod responds by stating that the claim is exceptional.

We could end this part of the dispute right here if Allisgod were reasonable, without going into the definition.

However, the problem of the definition would remain, because Allisgod has said he will not accept mention of Naturalistic Pantheism in the main Pantheism article unless the definition agrees with his definition, and he claims that our statement that we are Naturalistic Pantheist is exceptional.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is detrimental to the article on naturalistic pantheism to suggest that the World Pantheist Movement may represent one kind of naturalistic pantheism - because theirs is a simplistic definition, elements of which are completely opposite to what scholars say about the phrase. I'm fine with going into the definition. Allisgod (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the late reply - I have been a little busy with other things, and I appreciate your patience. If you are both happy to look at the definition of naturalistic pantheism, then we can do that, though that might not be very helpful. As our policies on verifiability and reliable sources say, we cannot just decide for ourselves whether or not the WPM's beliefs resemble naturalistic pantheism - we can only report what others have said. Therefore, it might be more beneficial to look at what other people have said. Reliable sources can also include sources which challenge the WPM's claim to naturalistic pantheism - we have the WPM's website supporting their claim; do we have any sources which challenge their claim? We might be able to achieve neutrality, and find a solution which is acceptable to both of you, if we use sources which both support and oppose the WPM. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to both outline your views below? For the sake of brevity, please stick solely to how you would define naturalistic pantheism and leave the WPM out of it; once we have a definition, we can then decide whether or not the WPM fits it.talk • contributions) 18:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Before we move on to the definition I think there's some good points made in your first paragraph above ItsZippy.
We have already identified two scholarly sources that are reliable by Allisgod's restrictive criteria (ie authors have philosophy or religion Ph Ds) which say that the World Pantheist Movement is naturalistic/consistent with naturalism and accept that it is pantheist.
Plus we have the WPM's own site stating the same - and by Wikipedia's criteria on "questionable sources" it's okay to cite this since it is not an exceptional claim.
There are no reliable sources that challenge the fact that the World Pantheist Movement is both naturalistic and pantheist or that it is naturalistic pantheist.
Allisgod's case rests on the claim that just because a pantheism is considered naturalistic, it does not qualify to be called naturalistic pantheism.
As well as being illogical, that claim is entirely his personal viewpoint. There are no reliable sources to back that up. There are no sources that say that the World Pantheist Movement is not Naturalistic Pantheist or not pantheist or not naturalistic. There are reliable sources that say it is pantheist and naturalistic.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you lying to make your point? Nowhere do the two sources you cite describe your organization as "pantheist". One calls it "Religious naturalist" as defined in his own way, the other goes out of his way to avoid the word pantheism and calls it "nontheistic naturalist". Again, naturalist is not "naturalistic pantheism" - which was determined to be a notable term not because the World Pantheist Movement suddenly wants to use the term to promote itself and its made up definitions by an expert geologist, but because of past sources who used the phrase. Allisgod (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Lying? Personal insults have no place in a mediation nor in Wikiquette. You have been constantly slinging personal insults against me throughout our disputes and your behavior is out of keeping with Wikiquette guidelines.

The two sources do not challenge the term pantheist in the World Pantheist Movement title and both describe our position as naturalistic. The World Pantheist Movement is described as pantheist in the Encyclopedia of American Religions. The World Pantheist Movement's website can itself be accepted as a non-exceptional claim under Wikipedia's policies on "questionable" sources.

You have failed to produce a single source that claims that we are not naturalistic, or not pantheist.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack, we need to get some help from others at this point. His only sources are his book/website and frankly if he wasn't just making up his own way of defining the phrase, I wouldn't care as much if he wanted to include a sentence about his organization on the page. But he is just making things up and this is becoming exhausting. His two sources do not use the phrase but he thinks simply because he calls his org pantheist and some others call his org some form of naturalist (including calling it "nontheistic naturalist") then he must be a naturalistic pantheist organization. There are many sources who define the phrase naturalistic pantheism his org does not enhance the article in any way and he has no reliable source calling it naturalistic pantheist. His org's info should be off the article. Allisgod (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources for calling the World Pantheist Movement pantheist, not to mention the significant fact that we are the number two result for Pantheism searches in Google and Bing.

Allisgod has extremely few sources for his personal definition of Naturalistic Pantheism, and has to ignore the great majority of sources to arrive at it, to make unproven and misleading claims about what "most scholars" say, and on top of that to seriously misread his own sources, including the major ones, Quentin Smith and Paul Tillich.

Allisgod's behavior in this mediation has been totally inflexible and as soon as one of his "reasons" for inflexibility is disproven he immediately shifts to another.

His rejection of these two sources is so egregious and illogical that I would be quite happy to seek outside assistance or adjudication here.

His pattern of behavior is so consistently inflexible and uncompromising that I find it difficult to believe a mediation is possible on any one of the questions at issue.

I would suggest that we discuss and agree which external boards to refer different parts - or all - of this dispute to. Dispute resolution is not the right place, because that is designed to be another form of mediation.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps now might be a good time to seek outside input, as we agreed we would earlier if agreement seemed impossible. The main contention at the moment seems to be over the sources Naturalistic has provided - specifically, whether or not they are sufficient to establish that the WPM is a naturalistic pantheistic movement. Perhaps we can use the reliable sources noticeboard, specifically asking whether any/all of the sources Naturalistic has cited are enough to mention the WPM on the naturalistic pantheism article. If the consensus is that they are, then we can include discussion of the WPM in the article (and we can then briefly discuss how the WPM will be included, and then move on to the next issue). If the consensus is that they are not, then we have a chance to look for more sources and discuss possible alternatives, before moving on to the next issue. It is clear that discussion just between the two of you is not yielding a result, so using the RSN should give us a clear answer which we can build upon, and also a solution which is supported by a wider community consensus. Does that sound reasonable to you both? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. And my biggest issue is citing his website/book and what I view as promotional content which adds nothing of substance to the article (and actually confuses the definition of naturalistic pantheism in my view. Allisgod (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My book is not mentioned even once that page nor on the main Pantheism article. I am not going to insert any references to it. The World Pantheist Movement is a different matter altogether, as the largest pantheist organization in the world and the top non-Wikipedia search result for Pantheism. What's written about it is simply factual, it's not promotional, unlike Allisgod's own continual promotional and non-neutral comments on determinism and Spinoza.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources seems like a good place to go next.
It seems to me like there are two questions to be dealt with, in sequence.

1. One relates to the World Pantheist Movement, ie the reliability/usability of the two academic sources that describe it as naturalistic and the Encyclopedia that describes it as pantheist, plus the useability of the World Pantheist Movement's own website for non-exceptional claims, and the absence of any sources that say it is not pantheist or not naturalistic.
   
2. I think we should also raise the question of the sources for the introduction to that article and the weight to be given to them and therefore actually the content of the introduction. However, I am not sure that RS is the right place for this - isn't there another board that deals with content?
   
3. Quite frankly I think there is also an issue of Wikiquette and a continued violation by Allisgod of the recommended assumption that other editors act in good faith, as well as the frequent insertion of personal attacks and insults. Everything Allisgod writes and say assumes that my editing is solely aimed at promoting my book and the World Pantheist Movement. However, I have personally removed all remaining references to my book - so that's not even an issue any more. References to the World Pantheist Movement have been extremely shortened by me, and we are talking now about only a single line in the Naturalistic Pantheism article and a short mention in the Pantheism article. My goal has always been the accuracy, neutrality and comprehensiveness of the articles.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. With regard to the coverage of the WPM in the naturalistic pantheism article, I think we get going with an RSN request (I'll get back to that in a moment). Naturalistic, thank you for raising that second point - it is related to this mediation so we can certainly discuss it. As it seems to be a more general point about the naturalistic pantheism article, perhaps it is something we could look at towards the end? And I agree that we should all try to assume good faith in the process - we won't get anywhere if we don't. Still, it's not that helpful to bring up conduct issues because that often ends up making people unhappy - let's keep this focused on content.

To the matter at hand: could you please present all of the relevant sources pertaining to whether or not the WPM's beliefs can be called naturalistic pantheism. Please keep this brief - just a list of sources, without comment - and give enough details so that other people can find them. Then I'll file a RSN request. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I understand why as mediator you are trying to maintain a neutral position, but if one editor during a mediation is accusing another editor endlessly of self-promotion and promotion of their organization and book (which is not even mentioned on any Wikipedia Pantheism page), and of lying, then that undermines the spirit of mediation. Surely that is an issue that has to be addressed? Surely complaining about that is not equivalent to doing it? It's behavior like that plus complete inflexibility that has made this mediation fail.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are my (Naturalistic)sources for why the World Pantheist Movement's naturalistic pantheism can be reliably described as naturalistic pantheism
Sources on whether the World Pantheist Movement promotes Naturalistic Pantheism:
World Pantheist Movement website: http://www.pantheism.net
(acceptable under Wikipedia RS policy for non-exceptional claims - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves)
Sources on whether the World Pantheist Movement is naturalistic:
1. Philosophy professor and Ph D Jerome Stone identifies the World Pantheist Movement's standpoint as naturalism on p 10-11 of Religious Naturalism Today
http://books.google.com/books?id=LZcjzjsXrHMC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=Jerome+Stone+naturalism&source=bl&ots=r2zTusOTUl&sig=xQJykF8_r1-UweXg-usJ__ejCJw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=caVcUMDfCuSQiAK5_4DYCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=snippet&q=World%20Pantheist%20Movement&f=false
2. Religion professor and Ph D Bron Taylor identifies it as naturalism on p 159 of Dark Green Religion
http://books.google.com/books?id=wAswiTYwU74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=dark+green+religion&source=bl&ots=AAoQFRkYOh&sig=_RbhDhgL7-ETTrpJP7EKABjHq1E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8aVcULSELuLNiwKDgIHoBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=World%20Pantheist%20Movement&f=false
Neither of these sources challenges the World Pantheist Movement's self-description as pantheist.
Sources on whether the World Pantheist Movement is pantheist:
1. Encyclopedia of American Religions. 8th edition. 2009
2. World Pantheist Movement website: http://www.pantheism.net/
(acceptable under Wikipedia RS policy for non-exceptional claims - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves)
Reliable Sources challenging whether the World Pantheist Movement is naturalistic, pantheist, or naturalistic pantheist:
None found--Naturalistic (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that - I have filed a request which can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Naturalistic pantheism. Feel free to take part in the discussion, but remember that the idea is to get outside input. If any further sources come to light which you want discussed, let me know and we can add the to the request. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for filing Jack, however I am not too happy with the summary presentation, which omits one important source, and prejudges part of the issue.

1. You omitted the Bron Taylor reference above, which also recognizes the World Pantheist Movement as naturalism.
   
2. To the WPM website you added the evaluation "but may be too promotional to be reliable." You may here be presenting Allisgod's view but you should say so. The claim is unjustified, it is simply a presentation of our beliefs and description of them as Naturalistic Pantheism - sepcially the page http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm. All self-published sources on themselves are by definition promotional of themselves, yet those that make unexceptional claims are acceptable sources for those claims.
   
3. You have not mentioned the fact that there are no sources that challenge the World Pantheist Movement's claim to Naturalistic Pantheist beliefs. That's a very significant point in showing that the claim of Naturalistic Pantheism is uncontroversial and non-exceptional.--Naturalistic (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for noticing that, and sorry for missing it out. I see you've noted most of those issues on the RSN page, and I've slightly altered my description of the WPM website. It seems we're getting some response, so we'll see how this goes now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So now what? Is there a way to hide the content from the subjects of the dispute on the noticeboard? As usual, the page has been overwhelmed by user:naturalistic's tendency to write lengthy defenses that discourage people with limited time on their hands to get involved. What now? Allisgod (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a superficial and ineffective criticism which you have repeated many times. What I provide is called evidence, and it's strong evidence. I research and write very quickly. You are free to respond to it or refute it. You seem to have unlimited time to review, undo or revert any changes I make to the Pantheism article.
What do you mean by "Is there a way to hide the content from the subjects of the dispute on the noticeboard?"--Naturalistic (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the purpose of going to RSN was to get outside opinion; while you are always welcome to comment, it is the opinions of other users we are looking for. So far, the consensus seems to be that it would be synthesis to use the various sources Naturalistic provided to assert that the WPM is a naturalistic pantheist movement, but that the sources do show that the WPM is notable enough to be included and the WPM's website can be used to support claims of its own beliefs. That also seems to be a decent compromise between your positions - it doesn't definitely say that the WPM is a naturalistic pantheistic movement, but it mentions it as a notable organisation which refers to itself as such. Does that seem like a reasonable compromise position we could agree to? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would not describe it as a consensus. Two editors have said it would be synthesis to combine one ref saying the World Pantheist Movement is pantheist and another saying it is are naturalistic and I can see the validity of that. But only one outsider has responded to relying on the Stone reference as the main source, which describes us as naturalistic in the center of a section on pantheism, and as the main example of a pantheism that is naturalistic. If you read the whole Stone passage pp10-11 it is crystal clear that he considers us as both pantheist AND naturalist.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is how the WPM is currently mentioned in the Naturalistic Pantheism article:
The World Pantheist Movement promotes Naturalistic Pantheism, which it describes as including reverence for the universe, realism and strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method.
I would agree to changing that to:
The World Pantheist Movement describes itself as promoting Naturalistic Pantheism, including reverence for the universe, strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method.
and adding the Stone citation as an independent reference of notability.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that synthesis is unacceptable. The 'outsider' you refer to seems to have joined Wikipedia 3 days ago. There is disagreement about whether the WPM may be a reliable source with one contributor simply saying it "does not qualify as a reliable source in any way". I will not accept the website as a source for promotional views such as "reverence for the universe, strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method". That information simply does not belong on this page. Furthermore, editing about the organization by the user is a clear conflict of interest there is no way he can be neutral on the subject of his own organization. He keeps repeating that I have something against the organization. I do not. I prefer an article with as much information as possible. It is the deleting and extreme simplifying of well sourced content from theologians and philosophers that bothers me most and if he or his organization is pushing that, then I do have a problem with that.Allisgod (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise which is entirely in line with the RSN majority. The proposed rephrasing DOES NOT USE synthesis at all. It uses the WPM's website as a source on itself (agreed by three out of four editors) and it uses the Stone source to support that. The Stone source supports the World Pantheist Movement's pantheism, its naturalism, and its notability.

Wikipedia's COI policies do not in any way disqualify interested parties from editing articles related to their interests. What they are aimed at is maintaining Wikipedia policies especially on neutral editing, accuracy etc. I have always edited in a neutral way.

Allisgod's own strongly held and blatantly admitted viewpoint is a conflict of interest and has always edited in a biassed way promoting his own openly stated agenda of promoting determinism, Spinoza and Hartshorne.

Allisgod has demonstrated over and over again his commitment to promoting determinism and overpromoting Spinoza, as well as his commitment to suppressing or distorting Naturalistic Pantheism and to removing or minimizing any references to the World Pantheist Movement (which are already minimized.

Allisgod has repeatedly refused to acknowledge even that the World Pantheist Movement is a pantheist organization and he has consistently called it an "environmental donation website."--Naturalistic (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"agreed by three out of four editors" - lets see...

• 1 of those "three" simply stated that self published material MAY be used
• The second is an account created 3 days ago
• The third is a member of your organization

Only one neutral contributor gave an opinion stating that the website is not "in any way" a reliable source. Allisgod (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I will accept a compromise if the user agrees to allow me to edit the NP page in the next week (I have already researched the majority of the sources available on the internet) as long as he agrees with me in spirit not to delete or condense information from reliable/notable sources afterward on the naturalistic pantheism page (or the pantheism page) from here on out unless these articles get unreasonably lengthy (and I believe we can both agree they are still lacking much useful information, esp when you compare to some of the online encyclopedias). I will follow Jacks advise of sticking to "so and so defines it this way," etc. Then we will discuss weighting of information and accuracy. But we should agree to strive for more information, not deleting and simplifying. I will stick to as many quotes as possible to avoid conflicts about what sources 'actually' said, but that's something that can also be discussed. I will try to edit it in a neutral manner as best I can. As for the WPM, I will allow something like this: "The World Pantheist Movement, which has been characterized as advancing religious naturalism along with environmental ethics, describes itself as promoting naturalistic pantheism." Allisgod (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a compromise? There's no way I can agree to Allisgod's editing without my retaining the right to delete or revise inaccurate or biassed statements.

Having a reliable source is only a small part of getting an article accurate and neutral. What's also required is accurate and unbiassed reading of the sources, and neutral and balanced selection of sources. If Allisgod misrepresents or misreads a source, as he definitely has done in the case of his version of the intro to Naturalistic Pantheism, I reserve the right to correct or remove that.

I find Allisgod's claim to prefer more information about Naturalistic Pantheism ironic. It's not much more than a month ago that he removed all references to Naturalistic Pantheism from the Pantheism article and also proposed an AfD to delete the entire Naturalistic Pantheism article.

At present we are talking ONLY about mentioning the World Pantheist Movement in the Naturalistic Pantheism article.

The other matters are things we have not discussed yet or gotten external input on yet.--Naturalistic (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is supposed to be a compromise. You have not established notability and your website is not a reliable source (please spare us the mountain of repeated words). Moreover, I didn't say you wouldn't have the right to do this and that, I was trying to reach an agreement in spirit and you instead...

• "Allisgod's own strongly held and blatantly admitted viewpoint..."
• "Allisgod has demonstrated over and over again..."
• "Allisgod has repeatedly refused to acknowledge..."
• "I find Allisgod's claim to prefer more information about Naturalistic Pantheism ironic."

Get over your issues with me this is becoming ridiculous. Allisgod (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My issues with you relate to your crusade to keep Naturalistic Pantheism out of the Pantheism page, to minimize or remove all references in the Pantheism and Naturalistic Pantheism articles to the largest Pantheist organization in the world, and to insert determinism and overhype Spinoza on every page you can think of. Stop that behavior and the issues vanish.

Non-reliable sources can be used as sources on themselves as per Wikipedia policy. Why do you keep ignoring that policy? Several editors mentioned it.

Notability is established very clearly by Jerome Stone on p 10-11 of Religious Naturalism Today

[Google Books Link]

Have you actually read pages 8-11? They establish beyond all reasonable doubt that Stone regards the World Pantheist Movement as pantheist, and considers it as naturalistic. No synthesis is needed to establish that.

Why has Stone included the WPM in a section on the relation of religious naturalism to "other views," in the heart of a passage on the relation with Pantheism, surrounded before and after with other pantheists?

Why has he devoted 22 lines to the World Pantheist Movement and no more than three lines to any other pantheist philosopher?--Naturalistic (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are comparing the relevance and notability of your 10 year old internet based group to Spinoza and determinism. The fact that you can write that with a straight face - even after a neutral party came into the pantheism page during our first formal dispute resolution and determined without a doubt that Spinoza is an integral part of pantheism, in fact clearly the primary proponent of pantheism - shows that your conflict of interest may be too overwhelming to actually reason with you. You are obviously too passionate about your organization to be a neutral editor. Internet archives show you very recently added the phrase "naturalistic pantheism" about your organization to replace your invented phrase, scientific pantheism. That's a fact. There are dozens of sources defining naturalistic pantheism and none of those sources mention your org. That's also a fact. The Stone source calls pantheism and religious naturalism "intersecting concepts" (and gee look at that the first person he mentions regarding pantheism is Spinoza). I offered a compromise and you simply refused and continue to throw shots at me as if you're incapable of believing that reasonable people will disagree with you. Please stop going in circles it's a waste of time. Allisgod (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You are distorting the picture as usual. As things stand now, the World Pantheist Movement has one very small mention in the Pantheism page, and another small mention on the Naturalistic Pantheism page and no mentions on the Classical Pantheism page. I personally deleted 90% of the World Pantheist Movement material on the Naturalistic Pantheism page. Viewed objectively, it is informative to mention it because it happens to be the largest Pantheist organization in the world, and it completely dominates Google searches for Pantheism (except for Wikipedia, which always comes first in almost all searches for anything). Naturalistic Pantheism has one small article which is not even referenced in the main Pantheism article. I would like to see it mentioned there with the same prominence as Classical Pantheism, and that's the extent of my desires.

You have repeatedly demonstrated and clearly expressed your strong bias against the World Pantheist Movement so your editing is clearly not neutral. Your rejection of an extremely clear and reliable source on the WPM's naturalism, pantheism and notability is completely egregious. You have repeatedly removed Naturalistic Pantheism from the Pantheism article, and tried to get the article deleted, so your position there is clearly not neutral.

I have never tried to remove accurate and neutral information about Spinoza or about determinism. What I object to is your non-neutral POV stress on these two. You have explicitly stated that it is your agenda to promote them, and your editing bears that out very clearly.

I object to your insertion of "prince and prophet of Pantheism" everywhere you can slide it in. It's completely devoid of useful information content. Spinoza was one in a long line of diverse pantheists. He deserves a prominent mention, of course. But he did not invent pantheism, nor was he the first modern to expand and promote it - that honor belongs to Giordano Bruno - and later thinkers have presented different and equally noteworthy versions of Pantheism, all of which needs mentioning.

I have never tried to remove determinism from the Pantheism article or from Classical Pantheism. I object to the prominence you insist on giving to determinism, and the frequent attempts to slide in POV arguments about its logical necessity. Determinism is not even a distinctive feature of Pantheism - most atheists today are determinists, and many theists have been determinists.

I am not comparing the World Pantheist Movement to Spinoza at all, I am dedicated to presenting a balanced picture of Pantheism across its whole history up to the present, and that includes the World Pantheist Movement. You by contrast seem to start and finish with Spinoza and determinism.
--Naturalistic (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

REVISED COMPROMISE VERSION
I would like to suggest the following phrasing for the World Pantheist Movement mention in the Naturalistic Pantheism article:
"The World Pantheist Movement, which has been characterized as advancing religious naturalism along with environmental ethics, describes itself as promoting naturalistic pantheism, including reverence for the universe, strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method."
This consists of the whole of Allisgod's suggestion, just adding some content - since every other example mentioned in the article adds something about how the particular person/religion embodied Naturalistic Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself, over and over and over and over and over.. to the point of exhaustion like you're a political candidate making the same speech over and over and over and over. No, I will not accept this "compromise" and will especially not accept irrelevant promotional material about your org from your website source. Allisgod (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote Allisgod? There's no repetition, this is an edit of your proposed version to add a small portion of mine.
PREVIOUS SUGGESTED VERSIONS
Naturalistic's version:
The World Pantheist Movement describes itself as promoting Naturalistic Pantheism, including reverence for the universe, strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method. --Naturalistic (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Allisgod's version:
The World Pantheist Movement, which has been characterized as advancing religious naturalism along with environmental ethics, describes itself as promoting naturalistic pantheism. Allisgod (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC) PROPOSED COMPROMISE BY NATURALISTIC:
The World Pantheist Movement, which has been characterized as advancing religious naturalism (source: Stone) along with environmental ethics (source: Taylor), describes itself as promoting naturalistic pantheism, including reverence for the universe, strong naturalism, and respect for reason and the scientific method (source: WPM website).--Naturalistic (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I offered the best I could that is some kind of compromise between our two versions.

• It has 47% more of your words than of mine.
• It places your wording first.
• Out of 37 words the first 22 words are exactly the wording you chose.
  
• The last 15 are nothing close to "irrelevant promotional material," they are simply informative and simply give a little content to the meaning of the phrase in this instance, as is the case for every other example on this page.
• My addition is perfectly justifiable under Wikipedia's "sources on themselves" policy.
  

--Naturalistic (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That was not my proposed compromise. I don't believe the sentence belongs in the article at all but offered a compromise. You're spinning the truth and misrepresenting my views (as always). Your bullying tactics might work with others but it won't work on me. Allisgod (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

How is it bullying to try to reach a specific agreement on the question we are currently discussing (whether and how much to mention WPM in the Naturalistic Pantheism article)?
I quoted you verbatim - how is that not your compromise? You mentioned some extra things which are not part of the current question - but we haven't even discussed those other things yet.
I am trying my level best here. It seems to me that you have little understanding of what mediation means, and/or little interest in reaching agreement. Agreement does not mean "My way or the highway." Agreement means reaching a situation we can both live with, even though it is almost certainly not going to be the situation that each one of us would prefer.
If we don't agree the alternative is edit wars. Since we have already been noticed for that by several editors and senior editors, and referred here for that, it's clear that Wikipedia editors will not allow that edit warring to continue.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry for not replying for a while. As you might know, I started university this week, and have found myself with very little time, so I will not continue to mediate this case. I have let the Mediation Committee know and they will find you a new mediator as soon as possible. Thank you for understanding; I do hope that you can bring this issue to a conclusion soon. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

For the attention of this case's two disputants

Hi, Allisgod and Naturalistic. I apologise that the mediator assigned to this case has not moved the discussion forward. We are prepared to assign you another mediator, but we require your assurance that this dispute is still active and that a mediator is indeed required. Please indicate below whether you wish to continue with mediation of this dispute. If you do, we will assign another mediator as promptly as possible. Thank you! For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No response from either party has been made, so I have closed this case. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 16:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.