[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Woodroar

Joined 15 February 2006
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Woodroar/Archive 7) (bot
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{noindexTalk header}}
{{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
| algo=old(90d)
{{archive box|search=yes|
| archive=User talk:Woodroar/Archive %(counter)d
*[[/2006|2006]]
| counter=7
*[[/2007|2007]]
| maxarchivesize=75K
*[[/2008|2008]]
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
*[[/2009|2009]]
| minthreadsleft=3
*[[/2010|2010]]
| minthreadstoarchive=1
*[[/2011|2011]]
*[[/2012|2012]]
*[[/2013|2013]]
*[[/2014|2014]]
*[[/2015|2015]]
*[[/2016|2016]]
*[[/2017|2017]]
*[[/2018|2018]]
*[[/2019|2019]]
*[[/2020|2020]]
*[[/2021|2021]]
*[[/2022|2022]]
}}
{{Contentious topics/aware|blp|ap|gg}}
 
== [[Brendan O'Neill (columnist)|Brendan O'Neill]] ==
== Mooji bio ==
 
Would this be considered a legitimate source to cite?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362359949_The_satsang_dispositif_Mooji's_teachings_power_authority_and_self-transformation [[User:Confundototalus|Confundototalus]] ([[User talk:Confundototalus|talk]]) 01:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 
:Hi @[[User:Confundototalus|Confundototalus]], thanks for the message! My opinion is that we should not, especially as it would involve claims about a living person. The paper appears to have been published in the [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537903.2022.2081311 Journal of Contemporary Religion] while the author was a PhD candidate. The source has been only cited once, in another paper by the same author. My understanding of [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] is that we should avoid graduate dissertations/theses unless the paper is widely cited by others. Now I'm no expert on scholarship sources, so you're welcome to get a second opinion at [[WP:RSN]]. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 01:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for your opinion! I think the information here is academically relevant & presented in the correct context, but it's a contentious subject so I felt it best to ask someone with experience here. [[User:Confundototalus|Confundototalus]] ([[User talk:Confundototalus|talk]]) 02:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 
== Introduction to contentious topics ==
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently been editing articles about [[WP:Biographies of living persons|living or recently deceased people]], and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated a [[WP:AC/CT|contentious topic]]. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and ''does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your editing.''
 
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as '''contentious topics'''. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
 
Within contentious topics, editors should edit '''carefully''' and '''constructively''', refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
:adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
:comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
:follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
:comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
:refrain from gaming the system.
 
<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the [[WT:AC/C|arbitration clerks' noticeboard]] or you may learn more about this contentious topic [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons|here]]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> [[User:Rowing007|Rowing007]] ([[User talk:Rowing007|talk]]) 16:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 
Look, I get it. You wish there wasn't an article about O'Neill at all. In reality, however, Wikipedia includes articles about people that you don't like. I already discussed this on the talk page and no objections were raised - not even from you. At this point, it's obvious that you are going to revert my revisions no matter what, even though I have reliable sources to back them up and good reason to include them.--[[User:LadybugStardust|LadybugStardust]] ([[User talk:LadybugStardust|talk]]) 22:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
== Film "Zarathustra" ==
 
:As far as I know, I'd never heard of Brendan O'Neill until I saw the recent thread on RSN. He does appear to meet our notability requirements so I'm glad that the article exists. What I care about most is that the article complies with all of our policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to claims about living persons. That includes requiring top-tier sources for claims that are controversial or negative, balancing the weight of sources, and fairly summarizing what reliable sources say. I have no problem removing poorly-sourced controversial/negative claims from articles about people I dislike, or, for that matter, removing poorly-sourced puffery from articles about people I like. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Films are not published. This film of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" was distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences from 2012 - 2019, then I cancelled the contract. I am doing all this work to satisfy your need to know the legitimate existence of the film - what work are you doing to verify the sources I have been providing you? I am on the defensive and I don't even know who you are. [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 21:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 
::One of the sources that I cited literally has O'Neill saying "Free speech is absolute" IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, so the claim that none of the sources say that he takes a free speech absolutist position is completely false. There is also no just cause for claiming that the source on abortion is a "misrepresentation" (in what possible way is it?). I have tried to work this out with you on the talk page and you have refused to do so.--[[User:LadybugStardust|LadybugStardust]] ([[User talk:LadybugStardust|talk]]) 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]]! I'm sorry but I think there may be a miscommunication or perhaps a misconception about what Wikipedia is about. We don't need to know that your film ''exists'' because [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY|Wikipedia isn't a directory of everything that exists]]. As an encyclopedia—a tertiary source—we're a summary of what "[[WP:RS|reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]]" have covered. To demonstrate that your film has influenced culture at large, we need reliable sources to say that—in reputable journal articles, news magazines, and so on. Lectures by an academic (who is widely recognized as an expert on the subject) can sometimes count, but they must have been ''published'' somewhere. For example, on their university's website or a conference's official YouTube account. (For our purposes, "published" just means that it must have been "recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party". You can read more about that at [[WP:PUBLISHED]] and [[WP:PUBLISH]].) In any case, we may need to verify that a source or sources meet our requirements at the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]], but we can cross that bridge if there are any sources to verify.
:If ''::I'm''ve thereplied oneat misunderstanding what[[Talk:Brendan youO'reNeill looking(columnist)]]. forGoing forward, please letuse methe knowarticle andtalk I'llpage seefor ifall Idiscussions canabout help.the Cheers!article. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 23:1452, 124 MayApril 20232024 (UTC)
::"Why This Film of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" Must be on Wikipedia"
:: This is a very difficult thing for me to write, not only because I've had to justify the relevance of this film so many times, but also because there have been so many interlocutioners, I'm never sure I'm talking to someone who can make responsible decisions about a culturally relevant object. But here goes, for the last time with you.
:: Woodroar, I appreciate the tone of your reponse to me, and of course your general point that there must be a standard by which something goes on Wikipedia, as a kind of democratic encyclopedia. I also can appreciate the difficulty you might have in determining the significance of this film, especially since it is from an adaptation from a text, from a philosopher from the western tradition who is controversial for some. So let's talk about the existence of the film and what counts for putting it on Wikipedia. I could easily refer you here to my website, which really is a kind of resume, but that would be self serving, self promoting, and only one source. In addition, like a resume, one must believe what is there is true. So all I can do now is explain things, then you must go check.
:: That the film exists:
:: "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", by Nietzsche, Film, Parts I - III of the Kaufmann Translation, (1993), 97 minutes with English Subtitles, by Ronald Gerard Smith, distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences (2012 - 2019).
:: The film is 30 years old.
:: The adaptation from the text and producer of both the theater and film productions were made by an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the College of San Mateo, California (at the time). On his website, you will find a brochure that describes the scenes from the text that are in the film as well as an explanation of the productions. It was produced by the College of San Mateo and the Goethe Institute, San Francisco. The theater production occurred at the EXITheater, San Francisco, in Spring, Summer, 1993 and was filmed at the end of the theater run.
:: This film citation was on Wikipedia before and it was not taken down - perhaps policies have changed or challenges have been made about the film - I hope all this discussion clears alot of things up.
:: PROOF THAT THE FILM IS INFLUENTIAL FOR CULTURE AT LARGE/IS A CULTURALLY INFLUENTIAL OBJECT
:: (From Reliable Sources)
::Nominated: Goethe Prize, Germany, 1998
::Reviews: Prof. Kathleen Higgins, The Univ. Texas, Austin (1995)
:: Prof. David Hoy, The Univ. of California, Santa Cruz (1996)
:: Prof. Christa Davis Acampora, Emory Univ. (1995)
:: Prof. Brian Domino, Miami Univ. (1998)
:: and others ...
::Cited in: Book: "Nietzsche, Postmodernity,and After" by Endre Kiss, et al, Traude Junghans Verlag Cuxhaven and Dartford, 2000.
:: Journal (Reviewed): "Teaching Philosophy", 21:1, March, 1998.
::Distribution of Film: Films for the Humanities and Sciences (2012 - 2019)
:: How many bought the DVD? How many saw it streamed from this company? There is really no idea from the royalty statements. I do know that when the distribution contract was being renewed, it was noticed mistakes were made in the streaming subtitles so the contract was cancelled.
::Conferences: Discussed: International Institute of European Ideas, Haifa, Israel, Summer, 1998
:: North American Nietzsche Society, Georgia State Univ. Atlanta, October,
:: 2021
:: Streamed: North American Nietzsche Society, Brown Univ., October, 2022
:: I understand the difficulty in determining the value of this object, both because it is original and not a Hollywood film. But know we have not had a miscommunication here but rather a clashing of worlds: the old idea of publishing and the new one; the old way of making films and the new one; the old idea of encyclopedias and the new one - and now making an encyclopedia that is democratic but reliable (note, on any search engine, the number of entries for films of "Zarathustra" - how does one know what is legit and not? - what a context we are living in today).
::Yes, there is a trailer for this film on YouTube... But what does that mean? How many people are deceived by the Internet?
:: You have the burden of deciding what goes on Wikipedia and I am only one person writing to you. But go out and check the veracity of what is being said here about this film. Highlighting terms in blue regarding veracity does not change the fact that someone from you must take the responsibility of making a decision. You must determine reliable sources in your own manner. I am not a collection of interlocutioners, I am one person. But I do know what is true. [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 08:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
:::PS This is the only film of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" that exists. Check this fact. [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 15:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I'll take a look when I get time. I'm going to be incredibly busy over the next week or two. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 18:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::I guess it's not going to be a speedy trial. [[Special:Contributions/90.90.133.74|90.90.133.74]] ([[User talk:90.90.133.74|talk]]) 13:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Hi Ronald—at least I'm assuming this is Ronald. It would help communication immensely if you logged into your account. It would also be best to remember that [[WP:VOLUNTEER|we're all volunteers here]].
::::::I'm still incredibly busy as I'm moving, but I went through your list:
::::::Nominations for prizes are rarely worth mentioning unless they receive significant coverage in reliable, secondary/third-party sources. We mention nominations for, say, the Academy Awards because there is significant coverage, even of nominations. Many smaller awards don't even garner coverage for the winners! In any case, I looked for coverage and couldn't find any. (As for your statement about the film not being a Hollywood release, I understand and empathize. Unfortunately, our [[WP:V|verifiability requirements]] mean that content on Wikipedia skews towards the mainstream. My own work and much of the music I listen to and writers I read will likely never appear on Wikipedia—but we're here to summarize subjects that receive significant coverage in media, and that can't include everything.)
::::::I wasn't able to find reviews from any of those professors. Where were they published?
::::::I found the Endre Kiss book on Google Books but couldn't search inside it. It appears that Endre Kiss edited the book and the publisher only existed for a short time (and published less than 20 books), so it probably wouldn't meet [[WP:REPUTABLE]].
::::::I found part of the Teaching Philosophy review, but it's very short so doesn't count much towards significant coverage of the film. In addition, it doesn't sound like the author actually recommends your film, which we should take into account.
::::::Inclusion in "Films for Humanities & Sciences" isn't something we'd consider, unless it was covered by reliable, secondary sources.
::::::Conference mentions/discussions would need to be recorded and published somewhere, and may also need coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I looked briefly for the conferences you mentioned and couldn't find anything.
::::::Let me know if you have any links to published reviews/sources and I'll take a look. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 17:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Dear Woodroar,
::::::: Thank you for responding to my prod and for doing so in a time that is so busy for you, especially moving. I am sorry I did not log-in before, I just get rather quickly quite confused in going through this whole process of justification, for so many times. I'm not really sure how Wikipedia works - you say you are a volunteer - but your rigor, here, is commendable. It is just the standards that are difficult for me. I suppose rapid clarity on some of these issues could be achieved by going right to a website, "bookb4face.wordpress" but that is just one source and could seem self promoting.
::::::: Regarding the reviews of the film of "Zarathustra", the most significant is the one from Prof. Kathleen Higgins, from the Univ. of Texas at Austin, who is a Nietzsche scholar and Zarathustra expert who wrote the review to the film's creator and was recommended to do so by another known Nietzsche scholar, Dr. Uschi Nussbaumer-Benz (who co-edited the above book mentioned, with Endre Kiss, and who also nominated the film for the Goethe prize).
::::::: You mentioned the review of the film in Teaching Philosophy by Prof. Brian Domino, Miami Univ., that is was short. Was what you read, the 2 pages (80 and 81) from the Journal? It is true, he critiqued the sound quality of the cassette but otherwise was very positive about the overall piece. It is also true that I neglected to tell you that the sound and images were greatly improved before the film was being distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences. In fact, when the film was being considered for viewing before the North American Nietzsche Society, 2021 - 2022, Prof. Domino saw the film again and complimented the improved sound and imagery. And the deep impression the film made on him again after almost 20 years. Communications between him and the film's creator confirm this.
::::::: In terms of any record of the film being distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences (2012 - 2019), I believe one could check their online catalog of films during those years, contact Kathy Tan at the company (who was in charge of acquisitions), determine who still has access to the film through the company today, or inspect the royalty statements from the film's creator. If you know of this company, it has been around for a long time and they are scrupulous in what they distribute.
::::::: Regarding the value of its presentation at conferences - what greater validity to the cultural importance of this film can there be than it being made available to watch before a group of Nietzsche scholars? I refer here to the fact that it was made available for streaming at the North American Nietzsche Society meeting at Brown Univ. last October, 2022. This can be confirmed by inspecting the communication sent out to members during the conference, contacting Paul Kastafanas at Boston Univ. (who is presently the head of the organization) for confirmation, or contacting the organization itself, which is based at Stanford Univ. (North American Nietzsche Society or NANS). Also the keynote speaker at their conference in Atlanta in 2021 was Prof. Christa Davis Acampora of Emory Univ., who also was head of the Journal of Nietzsche Studies for years, and who also positively reviewed the film.
::::::: I hope this is all helpful for you. I do appreciate you digging into all this when you are so busy, the fact that you are volunteering, and that you are trying to develope standards for Wikipedia. For my part, I continue to justify the importance of this film (especially for students), the only one yet made of "Zarathustra", understanding the difficulty of doing so in today's context, with something so original.
:::::::Sincerely, Ronald (yes, this is Ronald) [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 11:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::So here's the thing: [[WP:NOR|we don't do original research]] on Wikipedia. All claims [[WP:V|need to be verifiable]], which means cited to a reliable, secondary/third-party published source. The word [[WP:PUBLISHED|"published" is important]] because someone needs to be able to check that source. A review written by Kathleen Higgins to you hasn't been published, at least for our purposes. If it were posted online, it would still be a primary source and useless to us. The same is true about communications between you and Brian Domino, or the film being available to scholars. Similarly, we're not able to contact the distributor. Even if we could, it's not up to us, as editors, to decide if Films for the Humanities and Sciences distributing your film is somehow important. But if ''The New Yorker'' published an article stating that your film streaming at the North American Nietzsche Society or getting distributed by Films for the Humanities and Sciences or being positively reviewed by professor so-and-so is a big deal, now ''that'' is something we could cite. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 22:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Ok. And the fact that the film is mentioned in the published Kiss book (that you said you couldn't open) and reviewed in Teaching Philosophy, a published journal, by Brian Domino (which you said is really short but in fact is 2 pages long)? [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 09:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm assuming the Endre Kiss source is this one: https://books.google.com/books?hl=de&id=xTwQAQAAIAAJ. The option to search inside the book wasn't working for me. I wouldn't say it matters, though, because the volume was written and edited by Kiss and the publisher folded after about a year, publishing just over a dozen volumes. Our [[WP:RS|reliable sources policy]] requires that sources have "[[WP:REPUTABLE|a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]]", which means that we need to consider the lack of editorial process and peer review, the limited longevity and standing of the publisher, etc.
::::::::::''[[Teaching Philosophy]]'', on the other hand, has been a legitimate journal for nearly 50 years—at least as far as I can tell. However, I'm not sure if their reviews are peer reviewed or simply submitted. In addition, the only parts that I've been able to read, pages 80 and 82, weren't very favorable; in fact, on page 82 it says "I feel compelled to discourage the purchase of this tape". I understand that, according to you, the reviewer later "complimented the improved sound and imagery"—but without that being published, there's not much for us to discuss.
::::::::::If similar sources to ''Teaching Philosophy'' existed that were unequivocally positive and it was clear that these reviews went through the editorial structure or peer review, then I'd gladly argue for including a mention of your film. And that's not to say that only prestigious journals count here. Significant reviews or accolades in news media, literary magazines, film sites, those all count, as long as they have that "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". To get an idea of what kind of sources we value, you can scroll through [[WP:RSP]]. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 01:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::So, in the end, our discussion of positive verification rests on the value of the review in the journal Teaching Philosophy, which is a peer reviewed, published journal, in existence since 1975.
::::::::::: You have looked at pages 80 and 82 of the review - what happened to reading page 81? This leads me to believe you have looked at a version of the journal from March 1998, from the Philosophy Documentation Center, which seems to show only the first and last pages of the articles/reviews (unless you are a subscriber, I suppose).
::::::::::: Positive things stated:
:::::::::::page 80: "... wonderful adaptation of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" ..."
:::::::::::page 81: "Ronald Gerard Smith, the dramatist, did a remarkable job of remaining faithful to Nietzsche's text while simultaneously offering a provocative interpretation of it. Postmodern interpreters of Nietzsche, among others, have long held that Zarathustra lacks a narrative structure rigid enough to prevent a reordering of the text while retaining whatever meaning Zarathustra imparts. Smith has shown this to be true in convincing detail. While about a third of the text is not adapted and several chapters are rearranged and combined, the film unfolds as smoothly as Nietzsche's text. Apart from its role as an interpretation, the video would also help to provoke discussion about Nietzsche's text itself. Several colleagues were surprised to learn that their criticisms of the set as too minimalistic and Zarathustra's voice as lacking inflection have no basis in Nietzsche's text.
::::::::::: Smith also makes the influences of Nietzsche's own life on the text apparent. Smith cleverly replaced the narrator of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", "life", with a character that fuses an alternative side of Zarathustra with Nietzsche. Sporting a nineteenth century suit and bushy mustache, this alter-ego often addresses Zarathustra in a way befitting a father speaking to his son - which is precisely how Nietzsche frequently referred to Zarathustra. Several scenes that address relationships between men and women, such as "On chastity" and "On little Old and Young women", take on a new meaning in the video as they become dialogues between Nietzsche and a woman. This woman is undoubtly Lou Salomé, with whom Nietzsche had an intense relationship shortly before writing the first book of Zarathustra.
::::::::::: There are many other spendid flourishes throughout the production. Zarathustra's serpent, for example, is played by a woman in an undoing of Genesis of which Nietzsche would surely approve. When Zarathustra complains that his auditors have distorted his teachings, a portrait of Hitler is flashed on the backdrop.
::::::::::: "Smith has done a marvelous job of dramatizing and interpretting "Thus Spoke
:::::::::::page 82: Zarathustra".
::::::::::: [End of quoted material. See picture of page 81 to follow]
::::::::::: I believe the way out of this is to make a distinction between the drama adaptation and the film. Although many "secondary" sources positively reviewed the film, as you have discovered, (and the flaws Domino refers to were corrected by Films for the Humanities and Sciences in 2012 when they began to distribute it), the only published, reliable source (according to you), giving a positive review is the one from Teaching Philosophy, and it makes a clear distinction between the adaptation and the film.
::::::::::: So the Wikipedia citation could read: "Drama Adaptation by Ronald Gerard Smith (1993), from which a theater production then film (1994, 97 minutes, with English Subtitles, distriibuted by Films for the Humanities and Sciences - 2012-2019) were made, of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Parts I - III of the Kaufmann Translation."
::::::::::: In supporting the citation as an adaptation, it is making reference to a known artistic category (c.f. The Academy Awards, US Copyright office, etc.). In addition to the fact that the artistic object here is a drama adaptation, it is also true that the adaptation and film have always been treated separately, including the fact that they were copyrighted separately.
:::::::::::PS Brian Domino wrote his review while employed by Eastern Michigan Univ.. He is now at Miami Univ.. [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 12:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't have access to Teaching Philosophy, only what I've found online through a Google search, and the summary was that Domino couldn't recommend the film. I know that Teaching Philosophy is a journal, which I assume means that its articles are peer-reviewed, but I don't know if that's the case for its submitted reviews. So to sum up, it's a questionable source (because of the unclear editorial process for its reviews) that gives an overall negative review of the film; either are disqualifiers for recommending your film in an external links section on Wikipedia. As I said, if there were unequivocally positive reviews that published through the editorial process of a reliable source, that would satisfy me—but I haven't seen those sources yet. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 13:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Adaptation? You say nothing of this, why not? You base your view of the piece not being able to read the middle page of the review? Perhaps a link other than "external links" for an adaptation? [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 13:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{tps}} {{ping|Ronald Gerard Mith}} I think Woodroar has a good handle on Wikipedia policy and practice evaluating sources for reliability. If you want this film to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, you need to point to accessible sources that satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 18:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Thank you, Donald!
:::::::::::::::Ronald, my view is based on the statement "I feel compelled to discourage the purchase of this tape" from the final page. As editors, we need to adhere to the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]], which means that we neutrally (or fairly) summarize what reliable sources say, without adding our own interpretations, whether or not we agree. Reviews often include positives and negatives, but we need to respect their overall view. Otherwise, we'd all be cherry-picking praise from Siskel and Ebert's two-thumbs-down reviews.
:::::::::::::::As for being an adaptation, it really doesn't matter. It could be a parody or a commentary or a documentary—or something other than a film. Ultimately, we must look to ''independent'' reliable sources to see what they think about it. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 21:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I can't really follow the argument anymore. The justifications for rejecting the citation have been many (too many computers involved, not reliable sources, etc.). Lately it's been the reliability of Teaching Philosophy (you mention it has been a "legitimate journal for 50 years" but then you question if it is "peer reviewed or simply submitted").
:::::::::::::::: Quoting now from the inside of the Journal cover (from the March 1998 issue): "Manuscripts submitted for publication should be typewritten, double-spaced throughout, with wide margins on standard size bond paper. Notes, also double-spaced, should appear on seperate sheets at the end of the manuscript. Send three copies for a blind review process, with the author's name appearing only on a attached letter giving title, affiliation, and complete address. Contributors should keep copies of all materials submitted. Teaching Philosophy subscribes to APA guidelines for manuscript handling."
::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::: So now maybe we can agree about the legitimacy of the source, its reliability.
:::::::::::::::: But before, without having the evidence for the "blind review process", and without knowing page 81 (unbelievable), you selectively choose the review's negative response to the tape (which is a different word than film, CD, streaming, and, most importantly, ADAPTATION, etc.). The only word constant throughout the years since 1993, with all the changes in technology, is adaptation.
:::::::::::::::: What about page 80, which you could read? "... wonderful adaptation of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra ...".
:::::::::::::::: So what do you weight in what you could read of the review? My focus on the adaptation demonstrates the review is positive, even conceding the fact you couldn't read the whole review, and I am being generous here.
:::::::::::::::: So the citation: "Drama Adaptation by Ronald Gerard Smith, (1993), of Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Parts I - III of the Kaufmann Translation."
:::::::::::::::: Of course "adaptation" matters - it is a known and accepted artistic category. This particular adaptation was positively reviewed in a reputable academic journal that you could read.
:::::::::::::::: Where should the citation go in Wikipedia? A category that was earlier listed "Film/Visual" is now gone... Perhaps it should go under "Further Reading" or "Commentaries and Introductions" or under "See Also" - "Dramatic Adaptations".
:::::::::::::::: In the end, it sort of feels like bad faith here, something almost pre-judged from the beginning. "That it exists, continues, and with truth with it, it will continue to exist." [[User:Ronald Gerard Mith|Ronald Gerard Mith]] ([[User talk:Ronald Gerard Mith|talk]]) 11:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Ronald, it's clear that you're not understanding what I've been writing here, or perhaps not reading the policies and guidelines that I've been linking to. I encourage you to take some time to read through the entire discussion again.
:::::::::::::::::Yes, the default position is "no, it should not be included", because that is the default position on everything. Our requirement for inclusion is coverage in reliable, secondary sources.
:::::::::::::::::I'm done discussing Teaching Philosophy, unless on page 80 it says something along the lines of "I wholeheartedly endorse the purchase of this tape and kindly ignore the opposing statement on the following page". [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 12:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C ==
== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==
[[File:Peacedove.svg|60px|left]]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Exmor|Exmor]]".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}}<!--Template:DRN-notice--> —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 11:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 
<section begin="announcement-content" />
== ayo ==
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – vote reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]''
 
Dear Wikimedian,
why did you remove the very true happenings that {{redacted}}? i think that's VERY important information to include, victim of gamergate or not [[User:Xchan100|Xchan100]] ([[User talk:Xchan100|talk]]) 20:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
:Hi, Xchan100! I've removed your claims above, and also left some important information about Wikipedia (in general) and our policies regarding [[WP:BLP|content about living persons]] (in specific) on your Talk page. I suggest taking the time to read those links (and the ones below) in full.
:Content on Wikipedia should summarize [[WP:V|claims made by reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]]. We have to be strict when it comes to negative or controversial claims about living persons, and we also require top-quality sources for those claims. (I suggest reading [[WP:RS|our guidelines on reliable sources]] and also browsing through [[WP:RSP]] for details on which sources we consider reliable or unreliable.) We're not here to spread gossip or say whatever we want—in articles, on Talk pages, or anywhere on Wikipedia. So, to answer your question, those claims were removed because they're not supported by reliable sources. It's that simple. Please let me know if you have any other questions! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 20:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
== Manveer Heir ==
 
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|voting page on Meta-wiki]] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
Hey there! I've been having some difficulty making edits to this page, particularly to remove some strange editorial choices and to add highly relevant (and in my opinion, extremely important) counterbalance to the person's comments on race and diversity. You seem to be interested in keeping a bit of a stranglehold on even word-choice edits, which I'd like to get some sort of explanation on so that those edits might cease to be regularly undone. I've done my best to become familiar with Wikipedia's policies on the matter and tailoring the edits accordingly, but it maybe I'm missing something. For instance, my reference (17) is taken directly from the subject's own Twitter posts, identical to reference 3 which you have evidently accepted into the article. Kindly advise what differentiates these references. I don't believe the subject should be able to use Wikipedia for flattery or promotion - as it appears might be happening here (extremely positively-slanted wording is being vigorously defended whereas more neutral (though of course unflattering) wording is not) - I'm unsure why and would like to avoid a battle of edits here by understanding. Thanks [[User:WhereIsFibonacci|WhereIsFibonacci]] ([[User talk:WhereIsFibonacci|talk]]) 19:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]].
:Hi @[[User:WhereIsFibonacci|WhereIsFibonacci]], welcome to Wikipedia! We have intentionally high standards for content about living persons, particularly when it comes to claims that are negative or controversial. Such claims should always be directly supported by citations to reliable, secondary sources—ideally, multiple sources. (You can read more about this policy at [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:V]].) On the other hand, primary sources like reference 3 can be used for some basic, non-controversial claims (like leaving a job), as outlined at [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. Claims like "criticized for some comments" and "criticized by the video game community" would need to be cited to reliable, secondary sources discussing that criticism. I'm no expert on Manveer Heir—I only found out about him and this reoccurring issue when it was mentioned on a noticeboard—but I think it's pretty clear that he's being sarcastic with hot takes on a nuanced, controversial subject (structural/societal racism vs. individual racism). That limits how we can use those primary sources to...pretty much nothing. There's also the fact that half of the tweets are photoshopped and not even his. (Which is why [[WP:KNOWYOURMEME|we don't consider Know Your Meme a reliable source]].)
:For what it's worth, I agree with some of your other changes. The article has some [[WP:PUFFERY|puffery]] that should be removed. But that doesn't mean that we can introduce unsourced or poorly-sourced claims as some kind of parity. Wikipedia does have a [[WP:NPOV|Neutral Point of View policy]], which (contrary to how it may sound) requires that we (as editors) neutrally summarize what reliable sources say without inserting our own interpretations or maintaining a false balance. If reliable sources are overwhelmingly positive (or negative) about a subject, our articles should reflect that.
:I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 21:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for the points of clarification! So the source I cited was Manveer himself stating that he stands by "all of" those tweets he made. Now, they may have been collated in that KnowYourMeme page on the tweet he replied to, but I believe every single one of them (and more) are available directly on archive.today as links to his previous (now-deleted) Twitter account. Would it be better to provide these direct links as references? Or am I to understand correctly that, simply: flattering primary sources about a subject are accepted, but unflattering primary sources aren't? For example, I couldn't even get some of the puffery removed until now. This makes me question whether the article was read at all by those undoing the edits, as half of it was dedicated to specific slides on a presentation he once gave. For crying out loud, the article read that he was named "one of the top 50 people in the video game industry" which is simply wrong. Further, the links to Wikipedia policies you provided seem to focus a lot on the fact that primary sources should be considered unreliable ''unless'' it was made by the subject directly. Perhaps an article from OneAngryGamer (https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/03/mass-effect-andromedas-racist-game-designer-no-longer-works-for-bioware/) would be more suitable as a source, since that blog has been used in other articles....
::Now, you and I can argue whether he is "being sarcastic with hot takes" (respectfully, it is not "pretty clear" at all), but I encourage you to go and actually read some of his old tweets if you sincerely believe that - as, though I don't know you, I wager that were the comments directed at any other race, you would likely have a different opinion (for example: [https://archive.is/RODcy]https://archive.is/RODcy or https://archive.is/t3b9w (which I'd hope would give you pause)). The fact remains that a huge percentage of this article is dedicated to his comments on race, and whether you personally think it to be "sarcasm" or not, the comments made huge waves at the time, resulted in, arguably, his removal from the company, caused him to delete his account altogether, and are relevant to keeping the article balanced. Now, I'm not making those claims in the edits, only to you now as someone who followed it at the time, and only drawing attention that those comments exist and are pertinent. Nowhere in my language did it state he was a racist, nor that his comments weren't sarcasm, or anything else. Only that he made them, and they are related to his views for an entire section dedicated to them (or, why not just remove that section altogether?). If he has admitted to standing by those comments and you yourself don't view them as serious or racially charged, then why the panic to hide them from his article at all?
::If your issue is that we avoid terms like "criticized", then this can be done. There is no desire to paint the man as a monster, only to dedicate a measly 5% of the article to drawing attention to the fact that these comments ''were'' made and ''are'' relevant to the remaining 95% of the article that was biased enough that the man could - let's be honest - add it to his résumé. [[User:WhereIsFibonacci|WhereIsFibonacci]] ([[User talk:WhereIsFibonacci|talk]]) 07:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:WhereIsFibonacci|WhereIsFibonacci]], Heir's tweets are still a primary source, so unusable for claims that are negative or controversial. It doesn't matter if we avoid the word "criticized" or take a "drawing attention" approach, it's still controversial. Ultimately, we're not here to [[WP:NOR|perform our own analysis or interpretation of sources]] or [[WP:YESPOV|add our own point of view or opinions]] into articles—which it sounds like you're trying to do. We do sometimes fill in basic details from primary sources, though there are limitations. Nothing negative or controversial as mentioned, but also no puffery because that type of content is usually considered "exceptional" or "self-serving" or simply isn't a statement of fact. (See [[WP:PRIMARY]] and (again) [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] for the full policies.) However, keep in mind that [[WP:VOLUNTEER|almost everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer]] and we have 6.6 million articles, so not every article can or will be perfect. A few other comments:
:::One Angry Gamer is considered an unreliable source because their staff largely lacks training and experience in journalism (or related fields), they don't differentiate between opinion and fact-based content, they've misrepresented sources, and so on. You can read more about specific sources at [[WP:RSP]] (for general sources) and [[WP:VG/S]] (for video game-specific sources).
:::If the screenshot in that article is real, Heir had written more than 76 thousand tweets at the time it was published. I'm guessing he wrote a few more before deleting his account. Cherry-picking the dozen or two tweets that you disagree with is exactly why we don't do our own analysis and instead rely on what reliable sources have published.
:::As for why that didn't happen before, my guess is that your logged-out edits were seen as [[WP:BLP|Living Person policy violations]] and [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. BLP-violating content is almost always reverted, even if there are incidental good edits, because the policy is that {{tq|[c]ontentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}. I'm glad that you created an account and you're willing to discuss it now. If you have further concerns about the article, I suggest bringing them to [[Talk:Manveer Heir]] for a wider discussion. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 18:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Understood! Then it seems I understood correctly in saying that primary sources are good for flattering comments on a subject but not for unflattering ones! Thanks kindly for the clarification. I indeed would have agreed that One Angry Gamer might be a questionable source, but then I saw him in other articles (which I'm sure you've been quick to remove now after our discussion ;)). I'm glad to see some measure of consistency from yourself in that regard, even if I do have to say I'm disappointed that the fact he might have made 76,000 tweets at the time of his deletion is considered grounds for dismissing the validity of a great handful of others (except, again, in the case that such tweets are complimentary to him).
::::Anyway, it seems there's not going to be much progress to made here, and I admit I have been a little dissuaded from even attempting to fix things like puffery or unusual language as a result of this experience, and while you have been perfectly cordial (if a little accusatory) I can only hope that other aspiring editors get a more welcoming experience. Thanks for your time, and I hope enjoy the rest of your weekend! [[User:WhereIsFibonacci|WhereIsFibonacci]] ([[User talk:WhereIsFibonacci|talk]]) 21:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
== I have sent you a note about a page you started ==
 
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />
Hello, Woodroar. Thank you for your work on [[Viking-Bergen Banks]]. [[User:SunDawn]], while examining this page as a part of our [[WP:NPP|page curation process]], I had the following comments:
 
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
{{Bq|1=Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!}}
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list_2&oldid=26721207 -->
 
== Too confusing with the YouTube source on the Alexa Nikolas page ==
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>SunDawn<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. Please remember to sign your reply with {{code|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the [[Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help|Page Curation]] tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small><!-- Template:Sentnote-NPF -->
I was bummed when you reverted my edit on the [[Alexa Nikolas]] page when I said I had proof that Alexa's middle name is Helen. If you reverted my edits, then why are there YouTube sources on that page. Go check them out on that page. [[User:Chidie345|Chidie345]] ([[User talk:Chidie345|talk]]) 04:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
 
:Never mind. I found out that it had nothing to do with the sources. It was the documents. Technically, Alexa just censored her home address on her restraining order document to keep it private. [[User:Chidie345|Chidie345]] ([[User talk:Chidie345|talk]]) 04:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
[[User:SunDawn|<span style="background-color:black; color:orange;">&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;</span>]] [[User talk:SunDawn|<span style="color:blue;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(contact)</span></span>]] 04:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
::For our purposes, it really doesn't matter if she censored one thing and not another. On Wikipedia, we simply can't use documents like that to support claims about living persons. I urge you to read through our [[WP:BLP|policy on content about living persons]] if you're going to be editing articles about them. I hope this helps. Cheers! [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 13:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woodroar"