|
Cleanup
editI see you're having some technical difficulty.
I restored the original article and moved your proposed re-write to your own user space at User:Wilhelm Rojas/Pacifica Forum. You can work on it there at your leisure. It was definitely not ready for publishing in the main article space.
I also removed the commentary you added to the beginning and end, and moved it to the article discussion page Talk:Pacifica Forum#Proposed re-write. I have commented on a few problems I observed also.
When you are logged in to your account, you have a link at the top of your browser window called "Sandbox". This is your private space where you can work on drafts and practice editing. You can also create draft articles under your username, as I did in the case of User:Wilhelm Rojas/Pacifica Forum instead of using your sandbox. Either way, it's a better idea to work on the re-write in your own user space, and then announce your revision on the article talk page for others to review. That's what I did for you just now. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Personal Opinion vs Honest Reporting
editIt would be good if I was told exactly what the problems are rather than need to try and puzzle out what "personal opinions" is supposed to mean.
Obviously, since much of the article relies on personal observations there will be some admixture of private POV in with verifiable facts. But the goal was to keep this sort of thing to an absolute minimum. However, it was my objective throughout to clearly identify subjective views by all concerned, by such locutions as "it seemed to Pacifica members that..." I mean, I was there, I talked with Pacifica people repeatedly and always tried to guage their opinions objectively. After all, I'm a journalist myself. I understand the rules for good reporting.
To the full extent that accessable published sources allowed -to repeat, a lot is based on first hand observation for which no published sources exist- everything was substantiated by the observations of journalists. Or, in some cases, by direct quotes of participants.
Now I'm supposed to guess what is being objected to ?
I am more than willing to self-edit. But first I would like to know exactly what it is that you or anyone else identifies as problems.
I also was a college teacher. When grading papers I never would have made a student guess what his or her problems were. I spelled things out so that there would be no mistake about my intended meaning.
For the Pacifica article my goal was to be as objective as possible. All subjecive views were, I thought, clearly identified as such. In case this is a conceptual difficulty, a clearly labled subjective opinion is an objective fact if, indeed, the reader is told, for example, "according to so-and-so the speaker was anguished." That was so-and-so's opinion. It was reported in the article because it is plausiable and, if true, which it seems to be, it helps explain what happened at that time.
If there are problems I simply could not see as I wrote it would be ever so nice to know what you think these are.
thank you Wilhelm Rojas (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, just letting you know that someone heard your concerns. I'll take a look at the article later and tell you what I find. Howicus (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I read over the article. One problem is the article is full of attacks against critics of the group, starting by calling the SPLC "grossly inaccurate" with no citation, and getting worse from there. The article digresses to defend David Irving and attack the SPLC and CALC. And then there's the part about Pacifica Forum member Billy Rojas, which I assume is you. If you are the Billy Rojas in the article, I doubt you would be able to write the article neutrally, due to your inherent conflict of interest (see WP:COI). Howicus (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
What do you call "attacks" against critics? Could you possibly provide 2 or 3 actual quotations to illustrate such attacks?
Where in the article does the presumed quote "grossly inaccurate" come from? I did say "grievously inaccurate" but that does not mean the same thing, and reflects on the fact that the inaccuracy of the SPLC, which is repeatedly documented, is tragic in its consequences.
I do not consider pointing out someone's errors as an attack. Each such statement is a matter of fact. Yes, I dislike the SPLC, but at no time in the article do I "attack" the organixation. I simply point out with verifiable information that comments by the SPLC are not accuate and that classifying Pacifica Forum as a "hate group" requires willfully ignoring all kinds of relevant facts. All of the facts cited in my article are documented with published sources to the best of my ability to do so.
Not only did I identify myself as author, I went to lengths to explain why it was necessary for someone in the group to provide a corrective to the previous Wikipedia article, something that is filled with its own inaccuracies even if most are "sins of omission," not discussing facts that are directly relevant to the story of the group. Such as not reporting the many examples of speakers at the Forum who were not Rightists at all but who were opponents of Rightists. The extant article assumes -this seems to be an assumption built into the article- that Pacifica was not what its members said it was, a free speech group, but was something else, something that the SPLC came close to characterizing correctly. Any such conclusion can only reflect, in my view, a misreading of all relevant information.
There are, somewhere, several paragraphs of explanation about my authorship. I am willing to be indentified by name. At no time did I hide the fact. Moreover, I also provided the names of other people who were witness to events who could verify my account of things. These include Joe Lieberman, a published Oregon writer and journalist, who, at the time, was a reporter for the Left-wing Eugene Weekly. But there were various others. Axl Matulic said he removed all this material and put it somewhere that you can easily access.
Conflict of interest? Does this mean that the only possible authors for Wikipedia articles must be members in good standing of the Democratic Party who choose to write about selected topics?
Pardon my skepticism but as a political Independent who has no party affiliation, and who regards both (both) major parties as incapable of objectivity about much of anything, it does seem to me that your standard of objectivity is that of the political Left. Take my word, if I was interpeting your views as Republican in character I would in no way be reluctant to say so. I have no use for the GOP, either.
This is, anyway, how things seem; if I am wrong I would be glad to admit it.
If a first person account is out of bounds despite my every effort to be honest in describing my role in writing the article, what does this do to, say, Hemingway's accounts of the Spanish Civil War? Rule them unusable because he was a participant on the side of democracy against the Fascists ?
So, kindly, with exact quotes, not approximations, point out where I have attacked anyone.
Paragraph #1 is a summary. The research that follows provides documentation in abundance of the innacuracies of the SPLC and of the values of CALC. Did you actually read any of the endnotes?
About my political philosophy, which I gather you think of as conservative in nature, be assured that I am a Radical Centrist. FYI, there is a very good Wikipedia article, "Radical center (politics)," to recommend. That is what I am politically, not something else. No, this is not a form of libertarianism, we also are selectively critical of libertarians. The article identifies the author as a Radical Centrist but perhaps this did not register.
Wilhelm Rojas (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, first, I mistyped, I meant to say "grievously inaccurate" as you wrote it. The problem with that sentence is that it is unsourced, so the statement seems like your personal opinion. The article should reflect what the sources say, no more.
- In the section "Purpose", paragraphs 3 through 7 shouldn't be in the Pacifica Forum article. Those paragraphs are off-topic defenses of Irving and criticisms of the SPLC and CALC. If anywhere, those sections should be in the articles on those people or organizations. This is also where I see the attacks. For example, the fifth paragraph of that section, beginning with "Among other things." The first and last sentences are unsourced, but they would need to be sourced to support such bold claims. The middle sentence has a footnote, but the footnote is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. The use of phrases like "it is sufficiently clear" make me think that you have drawn your own conclusions from this source. The paragraph serves no purpose but to attempt to discredit the CALC. And then there's the conflict of interest, which is I think the main reason why this article is not acceptable. You were a member of the forum, so you have very strong opinions on the subject, and those ideas are immediately apparent in the article. WP:COI is very clear on this point. Hemingway was a journalist, reporting first hand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should have a neutral point of view. Some quotes illustrating my points:
- "based on the views of the Southern Poverty Law Center, itself embroiled in controversy because of its many mischaracterizations of various other organizations, for example branding the legal and entirely reputable Constitution Party as a hate group. [8]" The reference here is written by John Tanton, who was himself criticized by the SPLC, and is therefore not a reliable source on the SPLC's accuracy.
- "Pacifica was associated in many minds with swastikas and, for most people who made the connection, this could only mean Nazi sympathies. In actual fact the opposite was the case, but a stereotyped view nonetheless prevailed." No citation to support that this was not the case, so no evidence that it's anything but your own opinion.
- "The demonstrators who were most vocal, or so it could reasonably be inferred at the time, were also dedicated Leftists or Anarchists, and of all comments made that evening by these people, almost none could be said to have been "informed" in any meaningful sense. Billy Rojas, the other featured speaker, had tried repeatedly to discuss the value of free speech to the university community, and defended Pacifica's record, but noise and sometimes completely inaccurate comments yelled from the floor supposedly describing previous meetings made serious discussion nearly impossible. That is, it seems fair to say that most far-Left attendees that night were not there for civil discussion or debate, but to disrupt the proceedings as much as possible." No citation, almost certainly your personal opinion as you were a featured speaker that night.
- " It was a "last hurrah," as dozens of past Forum members came to witness the end of an experiment in free speech that, for all its flaws, provided an important example of the value of the First Amendment and its potential, for Good, in a university environment." How is this anything but your own opinion?
- The article is full of things like those. Bold claims such as the ones made in the article require good sources, which your article does not have. An article must also have a neutral point of view, which due to your conflict of interest, I doubt your version will ever have. Howicus (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
First, you took the time to actually read the article and offer comments about it; my thanks.
However, there are several points that are mystifying. If Wikipedia policy is absolute, no first person accounts, this should have been made explicit to me from day #1 by Axl Matulic. As well, if this policy is absolute it would seem to preclude all sorts of things that are perfectly legitimate for an encyclopedia. As a scholar of religion I use Mircea Eliade's valuable encyclopedia of religion on a regular basis. If I was editor of a similar encyclopedia today and could sign up the Dalai Lama to write an article about Tibetan Buddhism I would think that would be a very good thing. Or if a Jewish scholar was to write an article about Judaism, and so forth.
In other words, as long as everyone was aware that these authors were who they said they are, what is the problem? After all, unique information available nowhere else would be forfeited if such viewpoints were excluded on principle. Or what if an astronaut offered to write about the ISS for an encyclopedia about aeronautics but was turned down because he/she had been a participant crew member on board the space station? Indeed, such a policy of exclusion would be contrary to the primary purpose of an encyclopedia, providing useful and reliable information about important areas of knowledge.
This is not to argue the point but to observe that you simply will not be able to obtain the kind of information that I provide, from any other source.
As well, and this was made clear from the start, some very important information simply is not documented in print (or electronically) anywhere, and it is information I can provide. Moreover, if there are questions a list of other observers who might verify my account of facts was supplied for your use.
This has direct bearing on, for instance, your characterization of my account of events at Pacifica in January of 2010 as subjective and hence, by implication, inaccurate. To which my reply must be: You really must want to let the current Leftist article stand so that the reputation of Pacifica remains what the Left says it is. But Joe Lieberman, a writer for a Left-wing publication would, I think, verify my account inasmuch as the Leftists and Anarchists at the meeting in question were, in fact, being disruptive, raucous and noisy. It was pretty hard to miss. So, yes, I subjectively dislike such conduct, but for anyone who was actually there, I think my description of events would be recognized as at least generally accurate. If you don't trust my account I provided a list of other witnesses as a reality check.
It is also to question your definition of "neutrality," about which there is serious question in my mind. Granted I have a subjective stake in the article. However, the previous article about Pacifica Forum was filled with inaccuracies, written from a Left-wing POV (to a Leftist, it was written from an objective POV, but only another Leftist would think of it that way), and communicated blatantly false impressions of the group and its purposes. Now you are telling me that you want that article to stand?
I really would like a second opinion. If you are the "king" of the editorial board, OK, not much that an author can do in the context of an absolute monarchy, but otherwise I'm not much for rolling over and playing dead.
On to another issue: Without some substantial explanation to another effect the impression would be just about inescapable that Irving is exactly who and what his detractors say he is. But he was not invited to address Pacifica because he was all the things his detractors claimed but because he was a scholar of WWII.
I happen to loathe Irving's political views. But his scholarship, IMHO, deserves respect and deserves to be heard out. As I interpret your remarks, I should be happy to let an impression of Irving and his part in the story of Pacifica stand as written in a biased Left-wing article that now is canonical in Wikipedia? I think not.
Correct me if this is wrong, but I cannot shake the view that there is a double-standard at play in your comments, whether you are aware of any such thing. Left-wing biases are perfectly OK but a first person Radical Centrist account which admittedly will have its own subjective perspective, is not?
If you do not see the Leftist viewpoint in the current article I'm not sure that it is possible to communicate much of anything since, for me, it is as skewed to the Left as an article written by Gingrich would be skewed to the Right.
About Neutral Point of View, I do get that point. After reading your remarks it is possible to see where various passages might be re-written to meet that standard. It can be done; I can do it.
Final question: Why should I bother if you are going to disallow the article because I was a participant and also because you seem to want the extant article, with all its shortcomings and errors of fact, to remain the definitive article about Pacifica Forum ?
However, while he time you took to review my article is appreciated I would like another opinion before reaching a decision about what to do one way or the other. Wilhelm Rojas (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Go ahead and get a second opinion from somewhere else. My views are quite different from yours, and it is possible that I am biased as well. In addition, this discussion is starting to stress me out. Try Talk:Pacifica Forum first. We do agree on one thing at least though: Wikipedia should be unbiased. Howicus (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)