This is an archive of a previous discussion, please do not edit it.

Original request

Knowledge for All (talk) on Destiny (closed)

Brief: Made edits to the article which were reverted by Zeusnoos. Reverted back after correcting the entry as per suggestion given in edit summary but article was again reverted by Zeusnoos. Invited Zeusnoos to voice concerns in Talks page before reverting. Instead of doing so he reverted back once more, giving IMO biased reasoning. Could someone help us sort it out (read full description) -- Knowledge for All 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Now pending on Advocate Pedant אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Pedant: This is a content dispute.

"According to spiritual science, 65% of our lives are ruled by destiny (that is, are not within our control), whereas 35% are ruled by our wilful action (ie. are within our control). Examples of destined events include: birth, marriage, major accidents, death, etc."

was reverted with this summary:

"rv - removed nonsense edits - "spiritually evolved researchers""

this edit:

"According to spiritual science, 65% of our lives are ruled by destiny (that is, are not within our control), whereas 35% are ruled by our wilful action (ie. are within our control). Examples of destined events include: birth, marriage, major accidents, death, etc"

was reverted with this summary:

"rv - still an agenda pseudoscience edit no matter how it's worded."

this exchange followed:

Rv - Zeusnoos personal opinion. Please discuss concerns in Talks

"rv - you're making ps-scientific claims and citing a non-scientific website (no scientific research, not a scientific journal or organization"

(disputant counteraccuses advocee of linkspam), advocee appears to be acting in good faith and feels that rejection of this material is biased. We do have an article on the subject of spiritual science, and I am researching a resolution that will suit the needs of all parties and the wikipedia. I welcome input from anyone familiar with the subject matter. User:Pedant 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)This is probably about finished. 06:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

'debrief: This case is archived temporarily at User:Pedant/KFA-Destiny pending conversion to case history format. Summary A relatively new editor (15:03, 2006 February 27) provided a minimal edit summary on deletion of advocee's (a newer user: 13:47, 2006 August) edit. Problem seems to stem from biting a newcomer who was not familiar with policy re: reliable sources. Advocee states he will purue this at own pace. I have recommended no further action (re mediation or other formal procedure) Closing this case, really nothing else to be done. User:Pedant 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocee's viewpoint

AMA request

Hi, you've requested an advocate, I'm a good one, would you like my help? User:Pedant 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

First step

First, I need to know a bit about what the problem is that you are having, and I'll be asking you questions to clarify things. Then I'll research a bit and let you know what seems to be the best solution for a quick resolution. At any point, stop me and let me know if I seem to misunderstand you, the key to most of these things is to keep a good communication flowing.

If you prefer to be more private, at the expense of a little convenience for both of us, you may email me and I will email you in response. I prefer to keep the discussion here on your talk page, if that's acceptable, this will allow easy reference to our dialog.

If it's acceptable to you, we can discuss it here on your talk page, which I have added to my watchlist, I will see your responses here on this page, and you wil receive an alert when I respond. In that case, just describe the issue below and I'll get started reading it. Take your time, I'm going to bed after this post, but I will look in on this page in about 8 hours.User:Pedant 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem description

Basically I made edits to the Destiny article which kept being reverted without explanation, even though I requested an explanation. The user Zeusnoos who was reverting my edits later made allegations that the edited matter was 'pseudoscience', but was cutting off any discussion which very much left me under the impression that his reversions had been strongly biased. In fact the matter I had posted was from a reliable third source and was referenced. My edits read something to the effect of 'According to X, the situation with destiny is Y.' I am not aware of any Wikipedia policies that would discourage such matter. In the interest of NPOV, I think that the matter deserves its place in the Destiny article. Knowledge for All 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

researching

User:Pedant:Ok, I am going to do a bit of reading on the subject matter to familiarise myself with the concepts involved. In the meantime, to decrease the tension I recommend that you don't edit the article for now. I'll help you put together an explanation of 'why this edit is sound and NPOV' etc. shortly. I'd appreciate if you look over my essay at User:Pedant/Pillars which may help you a bit. It discusses some of the finer points of 'how to express concepts that may not be widely held', using some real examples from a previous discussion.

User:Pedant:Frankly, this seems as if it will be a fairly contentious case, as you are dealing with people's belief/disbelief, so referencing to highly reputable primary sources will be paramount to creating a stable text, which I assume is the goal. Wikipedia does have firm policies about neutrality as I am sure you are already aware, and these cover inclusion as well as exclusion of material. This is what we will need to work with. Bear in mind we will not be trying to change anyone's mind on what the truth is, that isn't within the scope of my abilities, but we can probably, with good use of multiple references, create a stable edit that includes a wider and more neutral viewpoint which doesn't exclude your material. User:Pedant 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Knowledge for All 07:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

a proposed solution

User:Pedant:All right, I think I'm caught up. The problem itself stems from the fact that both you and the other editor have strong beliefs regarding destiny, and you are editing an article about destiny without really having a good grip on your beliefs, letting your belief override each of your awareness of how to write encyclopedically. The policy in play here seems to be CITE and the guideline RS, is it possible that you can find a citation for your material that comes from a more acceptably reliable source than the one referenced at the spiritual research foundation website? Maybe you could contact them and ask them for a supporting reference for this material:

"However neither of these views are completely correct. The answer according to the science of Spirituality is that in the present times 65% of our lives are ruled by destiny and 35% by wilful action.

But we can overcome the 65% of our destiny part, by using the 35% of our wilful action to undertake the correct spiritual practice."?

User:Pedant:It seems that's the key passage objected to. The, spiritual research foundation website by itself does not seem to be wholly acceptable as a primary source, since they give no clue as to how they arrived at, for instance, the percentages in the above passage.

Another approach might be to use text to the effect of :

According to the spiritual research foundation website, a website promoting Spiritual science and a belief that human lives are affected by destiny, "65% of our lives are ruled by destiny and 35% by wilful action".

Which is a fact, and not disputable, as long as the website continues to say that, it is defensible to quote it. If you can't find a "better" source try asking on the talk page of Destiny if the above block of text would be an acceptable compromise. If the consensus is negative, we might need to try something more dramatic, in terms of resolving the conflict, if you still insist that the mention of those percentages is appropriate and another editor or editors disagree.

I'll check back here and on Talk:Destiny to see how things are going. User:Pedant 02:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I read over that website and I can't find any evidence or research or reference for the claim of those percentages, I think you might want to question where they came from. Anyone can basically put anything they want on a website, as you know, and I don't think (without mention of how the figures were calculated) that it actually fits the policy Use reliable sources ... do you have any idea how they could measure something like that? Do you think that maybe that is an unsupported claim? Without more evidence, I think most editors are not going to be happy with having that statement in the article unless it were like this:

The spiritual research foundation website, a website promoting Spiritual science and a belief that human lives are affected by destiny, "65% of our lives are ruled by destiny and 35% by wilful action", however they do not mention how the percentages were calculated, and do not provide evidence of how it was determined what portion of our lives is "affected", nor do they mention what the term "affected" means in this context.

And if it has to be put that way, I don't see the point in including it. Remember, what is written in this article is still subject to verifiability and reliably-sourced information, regardless that the topic is of a spiritual/metaphysical nature. Comments? User:Pedant 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedant, thank you for your efforts. I will henceforth pursue the issue at my own pace. Fyi, details of the methodology are given in the section About Spiritual Research: Spiritual Research Methodology[1]

If you explain where you found the term 'affected' - I may be able to help in clarifying. Knowledge for All 10:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

'Affected by destiny' was my characterization, not their wording. This was based on the phrase "ruled by" -- if we are ruled by destiny, we are affected by destiny.

I will take a look at the methodology. Hope that you understand better now that your edit was rejected because of another user's application of well-established policy. If he had discussed it, it would have been better, and that's a policy too. I've pointed this out to Zeusnoos, and that's pretty much all we could really hope to accomplish at this time, and I don't think it would be worthwhile to escalate to a mediation step, even informal mediation, at this time. I've archived this discussion, and my discussion with Zeusnoos. It's available at [[User:Pedant/KFA-Destiny ]] for now at least. I hope I have been of some help to you.

I'm going to consider this matter 'closed' for now. I'd be very happy to help you or advise you or answer any new questions you may have, any time. Just drop me a note on my web page. It's been nice to meet you and I look forward to your future contributions. User:Pedant 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Other party's viewpoint

Destiny and other articles

I'll be acting as advocate for the user 'Knowledge for All' regarding the article 'Destiny', and probably for several other articles as well. I noticed on the talk page that you have brought up the subject of linkspamming, would you please elaborate on what you're referring to? And any other problems you may see with this user's edits? I would really appreciate your comments, including any suggestions you might want me to make to 'Knowledge for All'. As a new user, I'm sure part of the problem stems from an unfamiliarity with some of our basic policies, but I'd like to find an equitable solution without resort to more formal dispute resolution procedures. (as far as I know, the user has not actually requested mediation) Thanks very much for your input. If you like, you could answer right here on your talk page, I'll add it to my watchlist. Again thank you, and I'm sorry to bother you. User:Pedant 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedant, the matter, I think, is quite simple and can be evaluated with little effort from the edit history. Shortly after signing up, KFA added a line to the Destiny, Free will, and articles:

"Spiritually evolved researchers claim that in fact 65% of our lives are ruled by destiny (that is, are not within our control), whereas 35% are ruled by our wilful action (ie. are within our control). Examples of destined events include: birth, marriage, major accidents, death, etc."

This makes an absurd and arrogant claim of some type of spiritually superior research group or class. When I reverted, I thought it was self-evident to any other editor why it was reverted. Another editor promptly reverted the claim on the Free will article. This edit was accompanied by the same website (and the only one) that KNA added to every single page he/she edited. Before evaluating the value and notability of the content of the site as a link, it first prompts one to suspect that KNA is partial and involved in the organization he/she is promoting. KNA then rephrased the edit:

"According to spiritual science, 65% of our lives are ruled by destiny..."

This does not solve the problem. First of all, as you might see from WP's own article on Spiritual science, this idiosyncratic use of the term 'spiritual science' has nothing to do with a translation of the late 19th century German concept of humanities as a discipline as promoted by proto-phenomenologist Wilhelm Dilthey. That it is tied to this 'spiritual science' website indicates that it is only this site, those that claim to be spiritually evolved, who are positing the percentages. In my reversion, I said that it is "still an agenda pseudoscience edit no matter how it's worded." I further noted on the talk page that the site members claim scientific research - if you look at the the site and evaluate it, it is not a credible source for scientific claims - it is not a notable scientific research journal or organization. The definition of pseudoscience, while it has its controversies, is pretty clear that an organization, discipline, or individual, who claim to be scientific, and throw around percentages applied to a nebulous concepts such as destiny, are in fact pseudo-scientific and unfalsifiable. Many non-scientific things do not necessarily fall in the category of pseudoscience because they do not make claims of being a science or of leading to empirically verifiable knowledge (some forms of religious belief for instance). (If you need help on definitions of pseudoscience and the place or lack of place for it on wp, consult the editors involved in the pseudoscience project such as User:Jefffire or User:Marskell. I have actually defended some edits of hard to categorize topics such as astrology against deletions on the basis pseudoscience due to the context. But in this case, 'according to spiritual science', is pushing a non-credible view of a non-notable site that suddenly appears on a number of pages by the same person who is likely adding his/her own website to drive traffic to the commercial enterprise that claims "Spiritual research for lasting happiness" Happiness. All such advertising is unencyclopedic and strongly reduces the credibility of WP. Zeusnoos 00:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

more re: destiny

Oh, I'm with you, I have no problem understanding why you reverted, several policies apply. I'm acting as an advocate and, simply put, I can't really bring my personal opinions into play here, but I can counsel KFA as to applicable policies in order to avoid an escalation to more formal methods, which is my goal here: to resolve this without damage to the encyclopedia and without putting a drain on the community resources. I very much appreciate the time you've taken to explain your position, really I do. Understand that KFA is a new and relatively inexperienced member of the community please, and behave appropriately with that in mind, it would really help my job. (which is voluntary and I really am doing it for the benefit of the wikipedia as a whole)

If you'd like to keep tabs on my ongoing discussion with KFA, (and I would greatly appreciate if you don't edit the page there, please) the discussion is at [2] but you might refer to skip directly to my first advice [3] which I will sum up as saying I advised KFR to try to find a better source/why it is not a reliable source/a potential avenue for obtaining the 'research' which spawned those percentages/ and the alternative of quoting the site's assertion rather than making the assertion. I haven't touched on the linkspam issue, and am assuming good faith for now, that KFR is not affiliated with them and I haven't even asked yet. Rest assured, I've dealt with new editors before, and most of them are good editors now that they know how things work and what the policies involved are, and how we got there. I do welcome your input though, but it might be most helpful (to me) to continue this here rather than on KFA's page or mine. Thanks for your patience, I promise to get this wrapped up nicely and soon. User:Pedant 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

oops... "translation of the late 19th century German concept of humanities as a discipline as promoted by proto-phenomenologist Wilhelm Dilthey" by this, you mean 'spiritual science' am I correct? User:Pedant

Your description of the issue on KNA talk is inaccurate since you say both editors have strong beliefs concerning destiny. I have not anywhere expressed any beliefs for or against the notion of destiny at all. Nor should any other editor since the purpose of an encyclopedia is to describe. I will say that it is absurd to claim that destiny, assuming that there is any reality to this concept (of which I have made no edits that might reflect my personal views either way), can be measured scientifically, but that's another story. To measure anything scientifically requires a measureable reality to that which is being observed by scientific method - otherwise it is in fact pseudo-science. If your proposed solution is implemented, I suspect it will likely be edited out when scrupulous editors eventually pay attention to this article - on the grounds that a single non-notable website (of which there are 100s such religious organizations) does not add much value to the article in an encyclopedic way. I will not be the one to do this editing since it would waste more time on a cut and dry issue. Zeusnoos 18:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"I will say that it is absurd to claim that destiny, assuming that there is any reality to this concept (of which I have made no edits that might reflect my personal views either way), can be measured scientifically," sounds to me like a belief, and 'absurd' to me implies it is strongly held, but my opinion is of little value to me in advocating KFA's position. However, your opinion is helpful to me in explaining to KFA why his edit was summarily rejected...

So, in your opinion (?) the best resolution would be:

that no mention of "what percentage of our lives is governed by destiny" would be appropriate under any circumstances?

That quoting the assertion of this website would not be acceptable within an encyclopedic context?

That it is of no value to record the assertion

(because the website is not a reliable source?

or because the assrtion itself is absurd?

(Do you see the distinction I'm making?) Sorry to drag this out, part of my job as KFA's advocate is to clearly understand the objections to the edit in question, and not to assume that they are the same objections which I would have to the same edit.

(in my opinion, there are too many stochastic variables in the universe, such that the universe could not possible be determinate, and might be better assumed to be random, and that the concept of destiny in the sense of a predetermined outcome of any nontrivial set of events is in fact absurd. However, my opinion is not of value to me in helping KFA to achieve a stable valid edit.)

Also, how do you feel about those links, do they need to be removed? Because not a relable source /or/ because they are promotion? Or?

Again, thank you so much for taking the time to explain your position, it is very helpful to me in guiding KFA to an appropriate resolution without escalation. This is probably the last time I will bug you about this.User:Pedant 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need to go into the ancient debates over what is doxa and what is doxa alethes or in modern parlance, justified true belief. I see the distinction you are making - by that I don't think mentioning percentages with regard to destiny is 1) the website is promoting pseudo-science, 2) the notion of calculating destiny is a-priori flawed (and in my opinion (yes in this case)), absurd. Supposing they are calculating something by the scientific method, perhaps gathering data through social psychology questionnaires, the hypothesis that what is calcuated is destiny either changes the definition of destiny or the results are shaped to reflect the hypothesis (with leading questions). If this org was in the news and considered seriously in any academic or popular context, then it would be noteworthy to add the comments from a NPOV. But it's not noteworthy - the article would be better expanded by looking at historical discussions of destiny and fate.

On the second point, I think all commercial advertising and sites to religious organizations or equivalent (with the exceptions of corporations or orgs that are the topic of articles or vitally pertinent to the topic) should be removed from wiki articles. Zeusnoos 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I can really only deal with one issue at a time, and KFA's complaint was that you are removing his material, so that has been the limited scope I've been working within. If I can show KFA just how and why this one problem arose, my assumption is that this new editor may be quickly able to understand that the other 'problems' they are having stem from a similar cause.

It might have been helpful for the community as a whole for you to have provided a more thorough explanation of why you are reverting or deleting, epecially when dealing with an unseasoned editor. (assume good faith/don't bite the newcomers)

Not to grind on you, you have explained your position very well to me, you might consider that if you had done so on the talk page (at the time of the first revert), KFA might have undertstood better, and might not have considered that he was being unfairly censored but that his actions had less merit than he thought. He might have not, though, that's a lot of 'mights'. I personally, as a more experienced editor, immediately recognised the following:

"nonsense edits - "spiritually evolved researchers"" and

"rv - still an agenda pseudoscience edit no matter how it's worded."

...as plenty of explanation. Knowledge for All did not. That was the core of the problem as I see it, that a newcomer, unfamiliar with policies and customs and 'shorthand explanations', perceived your deletion as an attack. I'm not blaming you, (Really. I'm not.) and it could easily be said that KFA should have familiarised himself better with wikipedia guidelines and policies before editing. Wouldn't it be great if all new contributors would do that? However, as an advocate, my (voluntary) job is to help once the problem arose, and to represent KFA and help KFA understand your viewpoint and the relevant policies... I had to actually get your viewpoint before I could explain it to KFA, doing otherwise would have been unfair to you.

I know this has been a burden on you to deal with, and I respect how generously you've given your time to solve this. Thanks for all of your time that you have spent on this issue, and thanks for putting up with my work on this. You've been very helpful. cheers! User:Pedant 19:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. good explanation and fair enough. Zeusnoos 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Addenda (after advocacy case was closed)

Please look at KFA edit history

And observe how his/her edits are also being removed by other editors on similar grounds. In each case the edits include material from the website that you assume on good faith is not an org KFA is involved with and using wiki to promote. I'm just saying... Zeusnoos 16:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've read all of Knowledge for All's contributions. To be precise, I am not 'assuming on good faith', I am abiding by the policy assume good faith, which is a requirement as it is an official wikipedia policy. I also trust that other editors are capable of deleting anything which needs to be deleted. Since I've discussed the relevant policies with User:Knowledge for All, I'm confident that the user understands and will be more accepting of other users' removal of anything inappropriate. If an actual problem arises, and someone asks for my help, I certainly will wade in, but otherwise, I'll let it ride for now. Thanks though, and thanks for having been open to discussion in that recent matter.User:Pedant 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've recommended that the user stop, and emphasized the relevant policies on their talk page. Failing that, I'd be willing to certify the dispute should anyone request comments. I've also advised that this linkspam will not help the site in question but harm it by producing hits on pages where the site's lack of credibility and lack of investigative/experimental rigor is discussed.User:Pedant 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)