Talk:Outrageous Betrayal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Biography

I'm reading this article and I know that the book was referred to as a biography, but I can't remember if it was CAN and LE's lawyers or not. Could you indicate in the article if it has been referred to as a biography? Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I will try to find sources on this and get back to you. Thanks for the suggestion. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, you may want to restate the sources as "confidential" rather than "unnamed." Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not know the nature of the sources, we only know that some sources were unnamed as per the information in the book itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Skolnik and Norwick refer to the sources as "confidential sources". Pressman, through counsel, refers to these sources as "protected sources". Cirt (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Per journalistic use, "confidential" or "protected," either nomenclature is more accurate than "unnamed." Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead includes mentions of "The Forum", but does not explain what that is. It would be better if this can be clarified in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Done Cirt (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Contemporary Psychology, American Psychological Association

(I've copied the previous discussion from our respective talk pages to provide context for what follows) DaveApter (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not tag something as unsourced when there is a citation to a WP:V/WP:RS source at the end of the sentence, namely Contemporary Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Rather than removing the tag and posting a curt note on my user page, perhaps it would be more constructive to add material answering the question. I appreciate that there is a reference, but it has no hyperlink so I can't readily check what it actually says. Is there an online access to that paper? If not, could you indicate who these "critics" are, and what they actually said? IMHO, a tag is appropriate to a sweeping statement such as "critics characterized the training methods as brainwashing,and suggested that the program had fascistic and narcissistic tendencies" even if there is a supposed offline source. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There does not have to be online access for every single source in an article, quite the contrary that is not needed in order to satisfy the WP:V policy. This particular text from this article has undergone a high degree of review as it is similar to the text made at the Featured Article, Getting It: The psychology of est. Specifically, this is a statement sourced to a highly reliable source, Contemporary Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association. The full citation is provided in the References section at the bottom of the article, for verification if you so desire. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. Thanks for your prompt responses on my user talk page. Just to clarify, I'm well aware that there is no requirement for a source to be available online to meet the verifiability criteria, nor do I doubt that the APA review of books is ok as a reliable source. I'll also take it on trust that the book being reviewed does identify some individuals who hold the wild opinions reported here. But the reason I'd like to follow it up is that I'd like to see whether these "critics" are notable enough for their opinions to meet the Undue Weight requirements (and also to satisfy myself that your synopsis is a fair summary). I guess I'll just have to go to the library and hunt it out. All the best. DaveApter (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ps The author of the book being reviewed, William S. McGurk, doesn't seem to be notable himself. Do you have any background on him? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, this is not "my synopsis", but rather one that has been developed through significant review in various quality levels including Good Article review, Peer Review, and finally successfully getting to the level of Featured Article, at Getting It: The psychology of est. I have added a couple other citations as well for this info, which is certainly not "undue weight" to mention the one word of "brainwashing", as noted in many different WP:RS/WP:V sources such as Contemporary Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, among many others. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's take further discussion to the article's talk page, please. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Reviewer William S. McGurk is lecturer in psychology at Brown University. A Loyola University PhD, he has been Clinical Psychologist at Rhode Island Hospital and at Brown University Health Services. McGurk is an ABPP Diplomate in Clinical Psychology , former President of the Rhode Island Psychological Association, and Chairman of the R.I. Board of Examiners in Psychology. His primary research interests are in the areas of psychotherapy and behavior change.

...

Needless to say, accounts of est are fraught with controversy and criticisms abound. Its major critics suggest that est is simply brainwashing. They also suggest that it is facistic, narcissistic, and too superficial.

• McGurk, William S. (June 1977), "Was Ist est?", Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 22 (6): pp. 459–460 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Cirt (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So who are these "critics" that McGurk refers to, what are their credentials, and what acquaintance did they have with est in order for them to arrive at these conclusions? regards. DaveApter (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is that necessary? McGurk is clearly a reliable source for this information himself. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course he's a reliable source for the information that some (unspecified number of unidentified) individuals held those opinions. I expect we all already knew that. What we don't know is whether they are numerous enough or notable enough to satisfy the policy of not giving Undue Weight to facts about minority opinions. DaveApter (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were notable enough to be mentioned by McGurk, as well as many other sources, and I added a few more as citations in that sentence. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't see that that follows from the sentence quoted - all it appears to me to be reporting is the fact that there is some gossip or rumour circulating to that effect. I don't see that this meets the WP:NPOV requirement: The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority). DaveApter (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no getting around that Contemporary Psychology published by the American Psychological Association is a highly reliable source, especially coming from this particular author. In any event, I have added some additional sources. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional cites added to background

Other articles have described est as "brainwashing" (Moss & Hosford, 1983), and there was reported that a patient suffered a psychotic episode following his participation in an est program. (Higgit & Murray ,1983). One of the few careful attempts to study Erhard's techniques in a rigorous fashion showed no long-term treatment results and concluded that claims of far-reaching effects for programs of the Forum were found to be exaggerated. (Fisher, Silver, Chinsky & Goff, 1989)

• Koocher, Gerald P. (1998). Ethics in Psychology: Professional Standards and Cases. Oxford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0195092015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

And the techniques of est were well designed for the work of eradicating the enemy within: public disclosure of the individual's whole being, good and evil, sometimes under stress, sometimes with pleasure, in a manner that, even when satirized in the movie Semi-Tough (1977), has clear affinities with the techniques of brainwashing. ... Robert Todd Carroll describes the est method as "often abusive, profane, demeaning, and authoritarian."

• Bardini, Thierry (2000). Bootstrapping: Douglas Engelbart, Coevolution, and the Origins of Personal Computing. Stanford University Press. p. 205. ISBN 0804738718.

est stands for Erhard Seminars Training, currently the most fashionable mindstyle/lifestyle movement in the United States ... Critics of est imply that both abbreviations imply brainwashing.

• Lande, Nathaniel (October 1976). Mindstyles, Lifestyles: A Comprehensive Overview of Today's Life-changing Philosophies. Price/Stern/Sloan. p. 135. ISBN 0843104147.

Such efforts, or course, are commonly known as brainwashing, which is precisely what the est experience is, and the result is usually a classic conversion.

• Brewer, Mark (August 1975). ""We're Gonna Tear You Down and Put You Back Together"". Psychology Today.

Cirt (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent copyediting

Thanks to Pedant17 (talk · contribs) for the recent copyediting [1]. I did some further copyedits to improve some phrasing. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyedits

Copyediting [2] by Pedant17 (talk · contribs) is helpful and most appreciated. However, some of the changes made in this copyediting edit introduced awkward wording, awkward spacing, and especially awkward linebreaks of citations, which simply adds unneeded space to the article's coding. Thanks for the attention on improving the article, but please take care not to add awkward wording, spacing and such while doing copyediting. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Style edits

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

---

[3] - style edits by Pedant17 (talk · contribs) decreased the writing quality of the article. Can we please discuss these changes individually here on the talk page? Cirt (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits of June 4, 2009 -- subsequently bulk-reverted without any substantive justification -- affected about 16 separate sentences. Each of my edits had the intention of adding clarity and improving style/layout without altering the details. Some of them need no discussion -- for example the insertion of a {{whom}} tag. Others may approach matters of preference, such as substituting "started ... est" for "created ... est" (more factual, less pretentious). I'll defend each change in detail -- in terms of style, adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and ease of editing -- if real and specific objections exist. Let's hear any such. Otherwise -- boldly onwards with improving the article and its topics! -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that many of these edits decreased the writing quality of the article. I would appreciate it if we could discuss these things individually first, here on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What an individual Wikipedia editor "feels" about something as vague and general as "writing quality" has very little relevance and does not helpfully further the discussion on how to write a better article -- each of us can have different opinion on such matters. I note the reference to "many of these edits" -- but that reference does not inform me as to which edits have allegedly "decreased" the effectiveness of the article -- nor does it address the issue of the other edits, which presumably have improved (or not harmed) the article, but which have suffered reversion as well. -- I've listed the criteria under which I made my multiple edits -- each in itself a minor change. I've discussed two of the edits in more detail -- but no corresponding detailed reply addressing those edits has come. My appeal for "real and specific objections" has met with no response. If I get more specifics -- preferably with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- I will happily discuss the cases individually and in detail. Otherwise I'll revert. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[4] - "first published in 1993" - you changed to "first appeared in print in 1993" = this is more vague and a degrade in writing quality. You moved a large phrase in the lede into parentheses, this makes it look quite awkward when the sentence was fine before as is. You changed "and it has been referenced in several works on psychology, cults and new religious movements" to "and various works on psychology, cults and new religious movements have referenced Pressman." - the addition of "various" here is wholly unnecessary and superfluous, again a degrade in writing quality. The entire Background subsection has been very heavily vetted and reviewed as it is similar to that of another article which was promoted to WP:FA quality status - you made a bunch of changes here as well that degraded the writing quality of the article. You also introduced awkward spacing and paragraph breaks later on in the article. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in a little more of the detail in relation to the changes under discussion. -- Changing "first published in 1993" to "first appeared in print in 1993" strikes me as no more vague and as definitely an improvement in writing-quality. We could make the matter even less vague by saying: "Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile by the legal journalist Steven Pressman recounts a biography of Werner Erhard. St. Martin's Press published the first edition of the work in 1993." -- The material which I moved into parentheses in the lead: "(in which family members made allegations of abuse against Erhard)" decreased the awkwardness of the sentence concerned by separating out the statement of general fact (the alleging) from the summary of the structure of how the book concludes: "by going over the impact of a ... broadcast on CBS ... and [by/over/of] [Erhard's] decision to leave the United States [of America]". My version replaces the awkwardness of a lengthy segment: " a March 3, 1991 60 Minutes broadcast on CBS where family members made allegations of abuse against Erhard" -- which has only a date-formatting comma to break it up -- with a clearer structure, replacing the vague "where" by the more specific "in which" and bracketing off the allegations for increased clarity of structure. It makes it clear what "the impact" applies to and cleans up the sentence. -- My change of "referenced in several works" to "various works have referenced" necessarily added the word "various" as a paraphrase of "several" and upgraded the writing-quality by avoiding the vagueness and potential weaselly and WP:PEACOCK overtones of "several". -- Vetting and review does not necessarily make for good writing-quality. My changes to the "Background" subsection improved the writing style while exactly preserving the approved and vetted content, making the sub-section more precise and better suited to an encyclopedia. Feel free to migrate them to improve any other article as well, whether WP:FA or not. (I've done a fair amount of work in cleaning up and improving the featured article Oil shale in recent months...As the talk-page tag says about featured articles: "...if you can update or improve it, please do so." ) -- The spacing which I introduced later in the article did not affect the paragraphing of the formatted version, but marked out the referencing mark-up apparatus more clearly as an aid to editors. In no sense do my changes here make the format "awkward". -- Do you have any other objections -- or shall I re-instate my editing improvements now? -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I still object to these changes, which make the writing quality of the article much more awkward. It is cumbersome to discuss all of your changes simultaneously, would be better to discuss them one at a time please. First of all "recounts a biography" is quite awkward, the book simply is a biography. This type of awkward wording you keep attempting to introduce degrades the article's quality. Cirt (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do *all* the proposed changes make the "writing quality ... much more awkward"? You give only one example, and that without any detailed analysis of style... -- I agree that discussing multiple "changes simultaneously" can become "cumbersome", but since all my changes got lumped into a bulk reversion vaguely characterized I have appealed for individual discussions. -- "Recounts a biography" describes one of the things that the book does. You see the book as a biography -- fine. I too see it as a biography -- no question. But one can also see it as a reportage, as a history of est, as an examination of the origins and progress of an NRM. Dismissing it definition-wise with the blatant assertion "is a biography" favors a single interpretation and risks violating WP:NPOV. -- What do you find so "awkward" about "recounts a biography"? Would you prefer "constructs a biography"? or "presents a biography"?, for example. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Hint: Pedant17 feels that the word "is" should be strongly - or entirely? - avoided in Wikipedia, but doesn't always explain this directly.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

@Pedant17 (talk · contribs) - unless you can present any WP:RS sources to back up your claim that stating this book is a biography is not NPOV (and in fact WP:RS sources do refer to it as a biography), then this wording you are attempting to introduce is indeed simply superfluous, quite awkward, and a degradation in the article's writing quality. Cirt (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to User: Cirt: assessing judgments on the WP:NPOV policy does not involve finding reliable sources, but the sensitive evaluation of text. I note that you have not addressed the issue of WP:NPOV with reliable sources either. Nevertheless, the discussions of NPOV favor the presentation of facts rather than opinions, and I assert that "the book is a biography" comes across as more opinionated (and disputable) than the strictly factual: "the book recounts a biography". (Many a work of history, for example, may give thorough biographical information in the context of some wider genre.) Note too the suggestion "Go with more detail rather than less" (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples). "Recounts a biography" gives a little more detail than "is a biography" -- and that detail makes the statement more accurate and factual. -- I remain uncertain to which of the proposed versions you refer when speaking of "my attempting to introduce" some wording. I have not proposed introducing any extra wording as such -- simply making the current wording of the article better. -- I have already explained why changing the wording (while preserving the undoubtedly relevant word "biography") would improve matters: you have not addressed my points. If you were to do so. we might well uncover some reason to regard some specific change as "simply superfluous" -- I have already asked for an explanation as to what you find "awkward" about a proposed revision. No answer has yet emerged, yet the repeated assertion of awkwardness persists... -- Nor have I yet seen any explanation of what you mean by the issue of "writing quality" to set against my reasoned support for and suggestions of improved style and better conformance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:McGeddon: one might wonder in what way idle and unproven speculation about the feelings of a fellow-Wikipedian might assist in our talk-page goal of "discussing improvements to the Outrageous Betrayal article" -- especially in the light of Wikipedia guideline on the assumption of good faith. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked your edit history when you suggested doing so during our conversation at Talk:Alien (film) (an article where you are against using the wording "Alien is a 1979 film"); a lot of your edits seem to be about removing the passive voice, and this seems to be the second talk page conversation where you're trying to agree on a wording without explicitly explaining to the other editors that you are strongly against any sentence involving the word "is".

In Talk:Alien (film), the conversation about the lead seems to have been bogged down in slow confusion since February, with other editors failing to understand what you mean when you reject variants of "Alien is a 1979 film" for not being "optimal". If you could be more direct about your preferred wording, and explain that you're trying to avoid the passive voice, it'd make it a lot easier to discuss the changes (so yes, I hope this assists the talk-page goal of "discussing improvements"). --McGeddon (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

@Pedant17 (talk · contribs): the article's current wording is already supported by multiple WP:RS sources. The wording is currently NPOV. Simply you claiming it is not is not enough - please provide sources to back up your point of view in this regard. Especially when combined with the comments about your prior behavior by McGeddon (talk · contribs), above, this line of action seems like it is bordering on disruptive behavior, across not just one but indeed multiple articles, to push a viewpoint about style and passive voice usage, which is highly inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:Cirt: Reliable sources do not support the wording of an article: they support the factual content thereof. I have no problems with the factual content of the current article: I merely want to make the style better and even more NPOV. I have discussed the case concerned, pointed out the irrelevance of reliable sources to this issue, and yet referenced official Wikipedia guidelines to back my case. You have chosen to ignore my points and instead to make unjustified assertions about something you characterize (without giving any explanation) as "highly inappropriate". Please explain! -- and then it might help to return to discussing the issues I have raised in regard to the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:McGeddon: Well done for checking my edit-history. How far and deeply did you check?-- The very vague summary you provide {"a lot ... seem... seems ... seems ...") gives no fair basis for characterizing my edits in the way you have -- that would require some sort of statistical analysis -- nor does your speculative opinion that I should declare a non-goal hold any promise of assisting in discussion of the changes -- on the contrary. Would it help anyone -- for example -- if I posted a disclaimer with each edit to the effect that personally, I prefer Merriam-Webster to the OED? (I do not, by the way...) -- If we can focus on the wording of individual articles, avoid speculating on personal preferences, and assume good faith, we may make progress towards some sort of consensus. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that every edit summary should have in-depth explanation; I'm just saying that once you're specifically discussing one of your passive-voice edits, after an editor questions it on a talk page, it would help the discussion if you mentioned passive voice as being the issue. You've clearly confused some editors on the Alien page by skirting around the specifics, and this thread was looking like it might go the same way - not every editor will notice or appreciate the passive-voice distinction, and I think it's worth mentioning if it's an important part of the reason why you've reworded something. --McGeddon (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon (talk · contribs) here, Pedant17's changes are not constructive, and appears instead to be a disruptive attempt to import "passive voice" issues from another article talk page to here as well. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:Cirt: I enjoy seeing fine examples of Wiki-collegiality at work. But since User:McGeddon has never portrayed my edits as non-constructive, you don't agree with him/her on that point. Similarly, as User:McGeddon has never implied on my part any 'disruptive attempt to import "passive voice" issues from another article talk page', you don't agree with him/her on that point either. Indeed, I have no idea on what you agree with User:McGeddon... I note that my well-grounded points in favor of my proposed edits have gone unanswered, and that my appeals for policy-based discussion of the matters have drawn no response, and that my requests for further specifics of detail have drawn a blank, and that my pleas for explanation appear to have fallen on deaf ears. I conclude that though you may disapprove of some of my stylistic changes (and I don't even know which), you have no basis on which to object to my restoring them as constructive changes aimed at improving clarity and fostering WP:NPOV. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the scrupulous removal of passive voice can sometimes harm the readability of articles, and in some cases crosses the line of WP:MOS (where obscure wording can give an unhelpful impression of "straining for formality"). Although we can sometimes make very small gains in accuracy by shuffling a sentence around to remove an "is" or a "was", that sometimes comes at a heavy cost of readability, and there are some cases where a compromise needs to be made, particularly in the lead sentence of an article, where accessibility is the key, and "editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions". --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that style-changes generically can sometimes impact on readability. That doesn't necessarily follow, however. And gains in accuracy may offset perceived disadvantages. In the case of my proposed lead sentence, I've increased the number of words from 28 to 29 and the number of characters from 212 to 218 -- hardly a large impact on accessibility or a case of "over-specific descriptions". We could make things even snappier by re-casting the first two sentences thus: "Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile, a biography of Werner Erhard, first appeared in print in 1993. Its author, legal journalist Steven Pressman, first became interested in writing a book about Werner Erhard in 1991 ..." -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, "first appeared in print", is passive voice and a degradation in article quality. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The formerly proposed phrasing: "'Outrageous Betrayal... ... first appeared in print" features a verb in the active voice. Has anyone already labeled it as passive? If so, I missed that. -- I take it from the lack of response to my points that you have no further objections to my current proposed version "OB ... by ... Pressman recounts a biography of .. Erhard". Or would you prefer a further enhancement in the quality of the article's readability such as: "OB ..., a book by ... Pressman, recounts a biography of .. Erhard" ? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I strongly object to this proposed wording, which would be a degradation in the article's writing quality, for reasons already stated on this page, repeatedly. Please do not infer from a perceived "lack of response" that prior objections have been resolved. They have not. I still object to this most awkward wording and to these changes that would make the article read awkwardly and degrade its quality. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed all your "reasons already stated" and received no reaction or comment -- just repeated assertions of already demolished viewpoints. Unless we hear objections to the latest state-of-play which address that latest state-of-play, we assume that silence denotes consent. If you can explain why you regard my proposed wording as "most awkward" then we can discuss it. I don't find it awkward -- just a sensible English-language reaction to the requirements of Wikipedia policy. -- You have called for discussion of individual changes -- the at least 16 that i could count. I have encouraged you to pinpoint perceived problems (at least 16 of them). If I only get back the tired mantras that something seems "awkward" (to some but not to others) or that something "degrades the quality" of the article (in some undefined way) then I may conclude that your objections have no substance, and possibly rely merely on personal opinion. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to sufficiently respond to the issues at hand, especially this passive wording of "presents a biography..." Cirt (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If you care to point out in what respect you find my responses thus far insufficient, I'll happily address the matters raised. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well for one your assumptions that a lack of response equates agreement with your position is most inappropriate, and disruptive, especially after I have specifically stated to the contrary. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that again. -- I've referenced WP:SILENCE which states: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". If you do not respond to my arguments, I assume that they have convinced you. If you do not respond to my queries for more information, it seems reasonable to assume that you have changed your mind, that no further objections exist, and that by WP:CCC we have reached some sort of WP:CONSENSUS, no? In what way do you find it "inappropriate' or "disruptive" to follow Wikipedia conventions in the way that I have? -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have repeatedly stated that you do not have my permission to presume on your own that somehow my position on this has changed simply because you state that you do not like the fact that I do not agree with your POV position. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have ever before "repeatedly" denied my right to presume something by following Wikipedia conventions then I fear I missed it. When did you make such statements? (I note your request of July 30, 2009 that I not infer things from a perceived "lack of response" -- but have seen no reasoned or sourced objection to my subsequent repeated explanation about the implications of WP:SILENCE or to my linking this to the consensus can change section of the Wikipedia consensus policy. I know of no mechanism whereby an editor can single-handedly declare the form of an article sacrosanct for all time, do you? -- I doubt also that I ever fell into the trap of stating that I do not like facts. When did that happen? My so-called "POV position" (if any) has no relevance to this discussion. I have attempted throughout to base my arguments on evidence, despite the flood of unbased assertion hurled at my conclusions. -- It does seem, despite my giving you multiple opportunities to debate, that your position has not changed: this I recognize. But unless you make some attempt to justify that position and back it with facts and logic, I (and the rest of Wikipedia) may perforce disregard it. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:McGeddon: if the use of passive voice ever becomes an issue, better simply to refer complaints to the strictures in the guidelines like WP:WEASEL, which tends to frown on passives not so much for their own sake as for problems they pose for encyclopedic rigor. But obsessing about passives causes few problems: other style issues predominate here, as in most cases. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has failed so far to present WP:RS sources supporting his dispute of the book's status as a biography. Sources already present in the article support the current wording, which should remain as such. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no dispute with the status of the book as a biography. Indeed, I have already emphasized that, writing on this discussion-page at 0242 hours on July 8 2009 that "I too see it as a biography -- no question." -- "Sources already present in the article" do refer to the book as a biography, but also declare that (for example)"Outrageous Betrayal is a disturbing but fascinating object lesson in the power of charisma divorced from conscience" (Carroll in Booklist). Evidently the book can "be" more than one thing at once in the eyes of different commentators and reviewers. Thus claiming -- exclusively -- in the lead sentence that the book "is a biography" emphasizes one point of view at the expense of any other. We have the task of expressing a neutral point of view -- especially in the lead sentence. My proposed wording moves in the direction of neutrality without sacrificing the important genre information or getting bogged down in complex alternatives. -- Note too that some reviewers do not emphasize that "OB *is* a biography". The footnote quote from Halpern in the Los Angeles Times uses the sort of paratactic structure I propose: "'Outrageous Betrayal,' a new and damning biography by Steven Pressman."... To state, loud and bold. in the lead sentence that the book "is a biography" paraphrases such sources. If we were to quote them word for word I would have no objection. But in the event my paraphrase labels the book a biography just as clearly, but with the advantage of not doing so dogmatically or exclusively. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources state the book is a biography. You are making your own POV assumptions about the wording, not backed up by sources or other sources not yet used that you have yet to present, to back up your POV. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained that we can better paraphrase the sources by simply treating the book as a biography rather than by unduly emphasizing that "OB is a biography". The sources refer to the book as a biography. We can too -- backed up by the sources. I repeat: Carroll says that the book "is" something else other than (or in addition to) a biography. Halpern uses the phrase "'Outrageous Betrayal,' a new and damning biography". Do any other sources contradict this approach and insist that we have to deal not with a book or a history or an analysis but only with something that we must equate solely and exclusively with the designation "a biography"? And if such sources exist, do they outweigh and supersede the evidence of Carroll and of Halpern as already quoted in the article? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are reading into the sources to interpret and support your own POV and wording style preferences, which is inappropriate. The sources confirm the book is a biography, and you have still failed to present any other alternative sources to the contrary. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have analyzed the wording given in the sources quoted, and I have proven that it supports my wording better than the wording you prefer -- an appropriate approach to reading the sources sensitively and precisely. If you can point out at what stage(s) my analysis appears inappropriate (or even flawed), please do so -- blanket assertions about "reading into the sources to interpret and support [my] own [alleged] POV" will need some detail before we can address them. -- The sources I have quoted treat the book as a biography -- and so does my proposed wording. Those sources do NOT state "OB is a biography" as such. If they did we could quote them word for word -- no problems. Under the circumstances, my proposed wording represents the given sources as well if not better than the wording which you have failed to defend. We have no need to muddy the issue with "other alternative sources" just yet: the existing sources support my proposed wording. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you are using the sources and twisting them to support your POV which is inappropriate as such. The book is a biography, is acknowledged as such by multiple sources, and to state it "presents a biography" is passive awkward wording. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Which sources did I twist, and how? -- We agree that several sources acknowledge the book as a biography, and books written in the genre of biography present/recount biographical material -- biographical accounts. -- Why do you characterize the clause "presents a biography" as passive? It uses the active voice. -- The clause "presents a biography" uses normal English grammatical structures. I find nothing "awkward" about it. Please explain! -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree - the wording you propose is indeed awkward, superfluous and unnecessary, and a degradation in writing quality. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So show us all how my proposed improvements seem awkward.Tell us why you deem them superfluous and unnecessary. Explain in what way they degrade the "writing quality" of the article. If my proposed wording "is indeed awkward" etc, you should have little difficulty in demonstrating this (rather than repeatedly just asserting the case). -- I've explained the advantages -- what specific disadvantages exist? -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have shown, and you have refused to listen, and that is why your continued drawing out this conflict has led to formal dispute resolution - where I note that consensus is firmly against your edits. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you have not shown how my proposed improvements seem awkward: your repeated assertions demonstrate nothing apart from some sort of dislike of at least some of my edits. -- I wouldn't regard a request for comment as a formal dispute-resolution process; and indeed, our associated RfC has not thus far resulted in any formal consensus, and I note that I currently had the last word there in covering off all outstanding matters of dispute. -- I further note that you have not told "us why you deem [my edits] superfluous and unnecessary. Furthermore I observe that you have not '[e]xplain[ed] in what way they degrade the "writing quality" of the article'. Nor have you enumerated "what specific disadvantages exist" in my proposals. -- Look: here I've listed and linked the edits made by User:Cirt to the talk-page since the bulk reversion on June 4, 2009 of my latest edits to the article 19 minutes earlier. I've added notes on whether each edit justified the assertions it made:

1. Jun 04 - No.
2. Jun 04 - No.
3. Jun 09 - No -- apart from expressing a "feel".
4. Jun 13 - Plaint re alleged awkwardness of parentheses (addressed in [5] and never mentioned since)
5. Jul 04 - No.
6. Jul 04 - No.
7. Jul 09 - No.
8. Jul 11 - No.
9. Jul 17 - No.
10. Jul 18 - No.
11. Jul 18 - No.
12. Jul 21 - No (surmise only)
13. Jul 21 - No.
14. Jul 23 - No.
15. Jul 23 - No. (Incorrect claim.)
16. Jul 23 - No. (Irrelevant claim; countered in [6]
17. Jul 23 - No. Irrelevant claim; countered in [7]
18. Jul 30 - No.
19. Jul 30 - No.
20. Jul 30 - No.
21. Jul 30 - No.
22. Aug 13 - No.
23. Aug 13 - Partial assertion (repeat). (Refuted previously and subsequently.)
24. Aug 13 - No.
25. Aug 13 - No.
26. Aug 13 - Partial. (Inaccurate claim refuted in [8].)
27. Aug 13 -Inaccurate claims, refuted in [9].
28. Aug 24 - Partial. (Refuted: [10])
29. Aug 28 - Partial (refuted in the current edit.)

What have I missed out? Where do I find the detailed and reasoned refutations of or the concrete sustainable objections to my arguments? -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To actually give an opinion on the edits: I don't think they affect readability too much, apart from the slightly clumsy lead, and the unlikely claim that someone came into the world "born John Paul Rosenberg, a California-based former encyclopedia-salesman".

But removing the passive voice from old edits does risk adding interpretations which don't exist in the sources. (Changing "participants were taught" to "est staff taught participants" implies that everything definitely came from the staff alone, rather than an unspecified mix of staff and literature. If we're in the world of dogmatic self-help, there's a big difference between participants being taught that "they were responsible for their life outcomes" and merely being taught "to see themselves as responsible"? Changing "est was controversial" to "est became controversial" implies that it was initially uncontroversial. Did the participants really describe the programme as "very intensive", or was that McGurk's personal opinion when he was writing about it?)

Were these edits made with reference to the cited sources, or was Pedant17 second-guessing the editor who originally quoted them? --McGeddon (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to your last question here, McGeddon, I would surmise that Pedant17 (talk · contribs) is second-guessing here and the edits are not directly in reference to the cited sources. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith. If Pedant17 is checking the sources, the edits improve the article. --McGeddon (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, however his comments and edit summaries suggest copyediting only. Cirt (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Copyediting" covers a multitude of sins -- mostly stylistic improvements but also fact-checking, tagging, smoothing and correcting for accuracy and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- as appropriate. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A passive voice comment that does not answer the question. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment does not address use of the passive voice, nor does it use the passive voice in its own structure. I don't understand this comment -- nor do I see what question I have failed to address. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Again: Pedant17 has still failed to present any alternative sources to back up his claims and POV wording style. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The ground shifts again: rather than elucidating the comment or even explaining what question I have failed to answer, we go back to generalized and irrelevant assertions about perceived issues already dealt with. Let's try to stick to the topic in hand. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, merely reasserting your POV is correct is not progress. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Merely asserting any point of view progresses nothing. I've made my case and await a reasoned response -- preferably detailed. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Already explained by myself, and others, above and below on this page. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Show us where those explanations exist -- for each of the 16 sentences/edit-snippets. Address my counter-arguments in the cases where we have actually discussed specifics. Show me where I went wrong in each case. Explain why the merits of your preferred versions outweigh the advantages of my proposed versions. As WP:CONSENSUS states: "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

See comments in the formal dispute resolution below, where consensus is against these changes and in support of my opening statement at the RFC. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the comments in the informal WP:RFC below -- and addressed each of them. Currently evolving consensus there appears (per WP:SILENCE]] to support my case. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

From your comments, you appear to have misunderstood WP:SILENCE - it merely points out that it can save time to assume consensus "until voiced disagreement becomes evident". It does not mean (as you say to Cirt above) "if you do not respond to my arguments, I assume that they have convinced you". It does not mean that you can dismiss any RfC comments from editors who haven't returned to the talk page.

Four separate editors have agreed that your edits did not improve the article; three feel that they actively degraded it. Consensus seems fairly clearly against your edits here. --McGeddon (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SILENCE essay in its current form says nothing directly about saving time -- it does spell out that "If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so".Importantly, in the light of WP:CONSENSUS, consensus will change as discussion progresses. I quote: "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." And: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." And "Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you." And:"If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time." -- Thus I expect (sooner or later -- I'll give it time) to hear any objections and that those objections have a good and sufficient rationale. -- The RfC process fits into consensus-building. WP:RFC states: "# RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.[...] If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page." The way that "editors ... feel" (as you put it) has little relevance here: more importantly, editors participating in the discussion should advance a sound basis to back their feelings. The discussion continues: I have responded to (not "dismissed") points in the RfC, and I await policy-based reasons for rejecting each or any of my proposed edits. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One is a Wikipedia policy page, the other is simply an essay. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct: WP:SILENCE expresses some editorial opinion in essay-form, whereas WP:CONSENSUS ranks as Wikipedia policy. For this reason I have given more weight in my comments to WP:CONSENSUS. But note how WP:CONSENSUS links to WP:SILENCE and how often Wikipedia talk:Consensus invokes WP:SILENCE, and how WP:SILENCE reflects long-standing common-sense as applied even before the invention of Wikipedia. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change over time - it can be unhelpful to assume that an agreed consensus from six months ago still stands - but it doesn't mean that the last person to open their mouth in a conversation automatically has the consensus. Claiming that four people disagreeing with you in the RfC (but failing to respond to your six-day-old wall of text) "appears (per WP:SILENCE) to support my case" is an inappropriate interpretation of the policy. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

An apparent consensus from six months ago will carry more weight than a 5-day-old straw-poll -- even if nobody has positively endorsed either: the tens of thousands of Wikipedians have had the chance over six months of reviewing and responding. And every response has the potential to build into some future consensus. Hence my disappointment that a fellow-Wikipedian cited on August 28 an RfC last updated on 24 August as "support[ing]" an already shaky argument -- "this is supported by the consensus in the RFC" (17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)). It seems appropriate to point out (as I have done) that policy expects discussion, not just votes, in the building of a consensus, and that based on the discussion and the non-discussion (as opposed to generally unsubstantiated opinions on style-preferences), the evolution of consensus appears overall to trend towards supporting my case for some revision of the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to McGeddon (talk · contribs): I welcome suggestions as to a less clumsy lead -- I've made my own proposed revision above. -- The paraphrase of my proposed text "Werner Erhard, born John Paul Rosenberg, a California-based former encyclopedia-salesman..." as "the unlikely claim that someone came into the world "born John Paul Rosenberg, a California-based former encyclopedia-salesman" seems unjustified. in any event My proposed version conveys a better temporal flow than the previous awkward "Werner Erhard, a California-based former encyclopedia-salesman born John Paul Rosenberg..." -- hence my edit. We could de-couple the birth and the selling of encyclopedias even more clearly with parentheses: "Werner Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg), a California-based former encyclopedia-salesman..." -- Changing "participants were taught" to "est staff taught participants" does NOT imply that *everything* came from the staff alone: it merely points to a a specific known channel of the idea -- whether the staff of est conveyed that idea in seminars or through producing literature (or indeed by other means). -- In "the world of dogmatic self-help" we can indeed make the important distinction between "being responsible" and "taught to see themselves as responsible". The first version buys into the dogmatism and endorses it; the second takes a more distant, perhaps even "encyclopedic" observer's point of view -- NPOV again. If we could use a direct quote here ("The leader stated 'You are responsible for your life outcomes ...'") that would make matters plainer and more accurate. But I despair of finding such a quote in a reliable source. (Though compare the near-quote in an extract from Outrageous Betrayal itself at http://pagesperso-orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/pressmn1.htm, retrieved 2009-07-23: "This, the trainer exultantly announced, was the miracle of est. You are what you are, and you are responsible for everything you do.") -- 'Changing "est was controversial" to "est became controversial" implies that it was initially uncontroversial.' Indeed. We can apply a modicum of common sense here, and ask ourselves: when did est first start to cause controversy? When Erhard first put the course together? Hardly -- not even if he intended to cause controversy. The occasion of the first est seminar in the Jack Tar Hotel in San Francisco in October 1971? Possibly, but even if some people came away muttering and arguing, that left est as a concept uncontroversial in any wider pop-cultural milieu. I don't know when est started to cause controversy (and I doubt that anyone can put a precise finger on the day and the hour), but from obscure, relatively uncontroversial beginnings it did over the course of some time become widely acknowledged as a hot topic of dispute -- in the nature of things controversial. We can express this universal truth by stating that "est became controversial" as a more accurate (though still annoyingly vague) alternative to stating "est was controversial". We also avoid or downplay any implication that est may have caused controversy only at one point in time, or that everyone regarded est as controversial (some apparently did not). The use of "was" remains ambiguous; the use of "became" less so. -- I take the point that we have insufficient evidence as to who precisely saw the est program as intensive. A quote from McGurk's article might clear that matter up: absent that we can leave the matter indeterminate by stating "observers have labeled the program intensive" -- without giving the Wikipedic encyclopedic imprimatur that the program actually "was very intensive". Certainly others have described est as "intensive" -- but their opinions, however consistent, do not necessarily make it so. Safer to go for the NPOV approach and report the opinions rather than proclaiming the (possibly disputed) fact... -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All of this parsing of wording seems to be an attempt to make our own determinations of history related both to the book and to est, which is a violation of WP:OR. Instead, we should rely on secondary sources, which is already done by the present wording in the article. Debating and/or attempting to determine what is or is not a "universal truth" is quite contrary to WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's useful to regard passive voice as a symptom of a possibly ambiguous fact that needs clarifying, but we shouldn't treat it as a self-contained grammatical mistake that we can simply eliminate by guessing who or what might have performed the action. Some of these edits are fine, but some are making a small and inappropriate leap of WP:OR, if they haven't been checked against a source.

The current lead is fine, for me. The Erhard sentence I'd probably reword to "The Erhard Seminars Training (est) course was founded in 1971 by Werner Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg), a California-based former encyclopedia-salesman.", although we could really just drop the birth name, as it doesn't seem particularly relevant here. (My line about the "unlikely claim" of your wording was that it could be read as "Erhard was born with this name and profession".) --McGeddon (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement that "[s]ome of these edits are fine". Which ones then remain to purge of WP:OR -- even after my explanations and justifications above? -- I appreciate that some people can see the present lead as "fine". The question then arises: in what way does my proposed revision *not* enhance WP:NPOV ? -- Our aims coincide in attempting to remove from the "Background" section any suggestion that Rosenberg sold encyclopedias from his cradle. My proposed sentence: "Werner Erhard (born John Paul Rosenberg), a California-based former encyclopedia-salesman, founded ..." avoids that implication, and it does so more precisely and clearly that your proposed version. My proposed version complies with the succinctness and "active prose" recommendations discussed in WP:Brevity. Any objections? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BREVITY redirects inappropriately to the article on journalistic news style; it is not Wikipedia style policy. There are no Wikipedia policies that specifically require the removal of passive voice.

On reflection, I think the current "former encyclopedia-salesman" sentence is fine; I was thinking it should be restructured to make Est the main subject, but in the wider context of the article, it makes sense to open by talking about Erhard. --McGeddon (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The non-standard redirection of WP:BREVITY, (since amended to become even more indirect) never prescribed a Wikipedia policy. Instead it pointed to (and continues to reference) recommendations on a favored and useful style approach -- which includes preferring active forms and constructions. -- It would amaze me greatly to ever find any "Wikipedia policies that specifically require the removal of passive voice". That would smack of a prescriptive attitude quite at odds with our encyclopedia. But Wikipedia guidelines do encourage the use of good style in general. Indeed, the WP:WEASEL guideline specifically identifies passive voice as a potential problem and discusses some of its drawbacks. And a glance at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=passive%20voice&fulltext=Search&ns4=1&ns12=1&redirs=0 shows a fairly generalized aversion amongst many Wikipedians to passive usage.-- Pedant17 (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good, so we are in agreement that there is an aversion to passive usage, thus, it should also be avoided in this article as well, and in potential changes to the current wording presentation. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, we agree about avoiding passives. Since none of my current crop of edits and proposed edits involves introducing passives, let's move on to the next points at issue.-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, your edits have attempted to introduce such wording. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

... and I say that my edits have not "attempted to introduce" passive-voice wording. Please give examples of my alleged crimes -- then we can determine the truth of the case[s] and discuss the specific problems (if any). Without specific examples we cannot usefully discuss this. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussed already in the RFC, below. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of passive-voice wording in the RfC below correctly identified that I eliminated rather than introduced the passive voice. It further concluded (also correctly) that one example of my dealing with an alleged passive-voice construction (quoted by User:McGeddon) did not in fact involve any use of the passive voice in the first place. -- Given this, I regard any accusations that I have "attempted to introduce" passive-voice wording as unproven unless you can provide examples to the contrary. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please let's not get bogged down in semantics. The relevant issue is that you think the article reads better avoiding all forms of the word "is", and four other editors disagree. That I erroneously termed this "passive voice" doesn't make any difference here. --McGeddon (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Semantics has considerable importance in discussing matters of style... -- I realize that you have an unaccountable interest in the removal of "is", and I've attempted to address your concerns elsewhere. Here and now we have started to develop a consensus on what does and does not constitute usage of the passive voice -- a necessary consensus for dismissing the issue of the moment: the spurious claims made as to my allegedly introducing such into the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to User:Cirt's comments on parsing and on universal truth: I regard sensitive and precise use of and response to wording as useful -- even essential -- in building an NPOV encyclopedia, and I make no apology for suggesting ways in which to use/paraphrase/quote reliable sources to further this end. If you can point to where I have distorted history, please do so.-- I make no attempt to debate or to establish "universal truth" -- I simply make the observation that controversy inherently takes time to get established, to "become controversial". If you can give examples of instant/permanent controversies, *and* if you can establish that Est belongs better with the putative class of instant/permanent controversies, then please do so. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on the editor wishing to make a change to show support as such in alternative sources. To date, despite multiple requests on this page, Pedant17 has failed to do so, instead repeatedly attempting to debate finer points of his own POV interpretations. Cirt (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I note at this point the lack of specific response to my plea for examples of my alleged distortion of history. Equally I note the lack of requested examples of different sorts of controversies, and the failure to reclassify Est in any sort of controversy-spectrum. -- To turn ot WP:BURDEN: WP:BURDEN relates to editors who restore as much as to editors who add. More importantly, WP:BURDEN makes no mention of "alternative sources" -- making the existing sources (which support my proposed approach) just fine. But most importantly, WP:BURDEN concerns itself with "material" -- facts and content, and not with matters of style. If you regard WP:BURDEN as relevant here, you will of course want to produce sources (even "alternative sources") that specifically contradict my proposed wording, or which at the very least provide a formula which you can quote verbatim (as I have suggested before). To quote the WP:BURDEN footnote: "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.". I've used the direct quotes which already appear in the article to support my case. If you want to find other quotes, go for it. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, yet again, it is you who wish to make changes to the wording, and you who continue to fail and refuse to present any sources to back up your POV. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Changes to the wording" include those which you have already made changes to my wording, reverting both innocuous and debatable edits. I have referenced sources already in the article, not with the purpose of "back[ing] up my POV", but to prove my point. Have you sources to support your approach? If so, which? -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you misstate what has occurred. You have not presented any new sources to back up your POV, whereas the sources already present in the article support the current wording. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out that existing sources support my case. POV doesn't (and shouldn't) come into it: we can point to the concrete evidence of the wording of existing sources already "present in the article". They support my approach better than they support the current wording in the article -- I've explained this, and you haven't disputed my analysis yet -- only sworn at and disparaged it. Let's look at our existing sources before rushing out to find others. Here : Francis Halpern in the Los Angeles Times of October 14, 1993, talks of: "'Outrageous Betrayal,' a new and damning biography by Steven Pressman." He doesn't say "Outrageous Betrayal is a biography" -- he refers to it as a biography -- and we can do the same. Mary Carroll in Booklist (90, 1) does tell us what the book "is" -- she writes: "Outrageous Betrayal is a disturbing but fascinating object lesson in the power of charisma divorced from conscience". We could put her quote in the lead -- but we would lose the overview clarity of explaining that our article has to do with a book and that that book includes biographical material. -- Let's use the sources available and reflect them accurately by improving the wording of our article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposed changes would degrade rather than improve the writing quality of the article, and this is supported by the consensus in the RFC. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in the RfC below has resulted in one further proposed improvement ("participants were taught" becoming "participants learned". In no instance has consensus-building thus far gone through the arguments with the result of condemning my proposed changes as "degrad[ing] the written quality of the article". Let's see the evidence and the arguments before we rush to the conclusion of "degradation" -- recalling that (as the WP:CONSENSUS policy states): "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Pedant17, please stop wasting time, energy, and talk page space on an issue of edits that are not constructive and where multiple previously uninvolved editors feel is incorrect and where you are against consensus to make such changes. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your demonstrated concern over the improvement of our article. I continue to await solid responses to my points and concerns from all interested parties with a view to strengthening the emerging trend of no real substantial voiced objections to my proposed and amended edits. Who knows? -- some day I may reach a point where I can update the article itself again. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "update", you mean continue to make nonconstructive edits which are not supported by consensus as demonstrated by the RfC, then that would not be appropriate. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I regard all my edits as constructive, and invite you to prove otherwise. The RfC started on this article on August 13 has so far failed to address important matters of WP:NPOV and accuracy (as previously raised on this Talk-page) in any fact-based manner, and even the expressed opinions of style smack mainly of opinion and assertion rather than sober debate (due perhaps to confusion and filtering in the scope of the RfC). The RfC has not yet demonstrated any definitive discussion -based consensus opposed to my proposed and updated revisions. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I respectfully disagree. The RfC constructively came to a consensus among previously uninvolved editors that your edits were not helpful. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Two "previously uninvolved editors" took part in the RfC discussion. User:IceCreamEmpress correctly put straight the red-herring about passives, agreed (without substantiation) on an unsupported theory of how I might have gone about my editing, concurred (without offering evidence) that my edits did not improve matters and pointed out some semantic implications of wording already improved. User:MartinPoulter agreed with the view of clumsiness and on the importance of readability -- again without offering any new viewpoints or evidence. Both contributors politely acknowledged balancing pros: "I'm not saying that the text being edited is perfect, nor that all Pedant17's contributions are unhelpful" and "eliminating passive constructions might or might not improve an article" -- more generalized statements. Neither RfC contributor has reacted to my explanations and justifications which I wrote subsequent to receiving their RfC comments. So I repeat my contention: "The RfC has not yet demonstrated any definitive discussion-based consensus opposed to my proposed and updated revisions." And I ask: where do you get support for the claim that "The RfC constructively came to a consensus among previously uninvolved editors that your edits were not helpful"? -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) said: The edits linked by Cirt do seem to, in general, replace elegant, succinct wording with a more clumsy wording. ... I agree on the whole that the discussed changes introduce awkward language, with no gain in accuracy to justify it. and IceCreamEmpress (talk · contribs) said: "published" seems like not only a more concise, but a more accurate (in terms of connotation) choice of words than "appeared in print. Both comments do not support your attempts to degrade the writing quality of the article, e.g. removing the word "is" wherever you can, and changing "published" to "appeared in print", etc. Cirt (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the comments by User:MartinPoulter added anything constructive to the discussion: they merely agreed with a one-sided existing view of a small part of the issue. Nor has that user responded to my explanations and refutations. -- The comment by User:IceCreamEmpress reinforces one proposed revision to emphasize "publication" rather than "appearance in print", thus supporting one of my subsequent contributions. Where do you get that idea that a consensus opposes my proposals? -- You have not explained why sometimes re-writing to avoid undesirable use of the word "is" in any way "degrades writing quality" -- I invite you to do so, preferably without misrepresenting my edits. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, the editors that showed up to the RfC reinforced the talk page consensus that your edits were not helpful. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

RfC: Recent wording edits to article

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

---

Are the recent attempts at wording changes to the article text appropriate? Cirt (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comment by Cirt

Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly attempted to introduce awkward passive voice wording to this article, resulting in a degradation in the article's writing quality. In other instances Pedant17 has changed prior wording to introduce his own POV interpretation of history and events, without presenting sources to back up these changes. [11], [12], [13]

Problematic changes have included:

• Changing wording from "is a biography" to "presents a biography..." - no need for the extra awkward wording.
• "first published in 1993" changed to "first appeared in print in 1993..." - again, no need to make something which was specific more vaguely worded.
• "The est training was a four-day..." changed to "The est training consisted of a four-day..." - again, prior wording was simpler, no need for this awkward passive wording change.

The issue has been discussed at length on the talk page, and McGeddon (talk · contribs) pointed out that some of the edits by Pedant17 are making a small and inappropriate leap of WP:OR. McGeddon also pointed out past issues with Pedant17 bogging down talk page discussion at the page Talk:Alien (film) [14], [15]; McGeddon also noted that Pedant17 has a tendency to POV push his personal preference of word usage across articles, removing the word "is" in favor of awkward wording changes without explanation [16].

Hopefully this RfC will help to reach a consensus on the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of some of these recent wording changes. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by McGeddon

I'd add that the two problems are connected; the POV issues are all fairly minor, and are entirely a side-effect of eliminating the passive voice. (As an example, Pedant17 changed "The program was very intensive" to "Participants found the program very intensive" - good for eliminating the passive voice, but Pedant17 is second-guessing the source when he decides that "participants" found it intensive, rather than "critics" or "William McGurk", or even that "promoters advertised it as very intensive".) Passive voice can be a useful symptom of an ambiguously-quoted sentence, but it's a sign to check the source, it's not always a self-contained problem that we can easily eliminate just by guessing the most obvious actor from context. --McGeddon (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As an example, Pedant17 changed "The program was very intensive" to "Participants found the program very intensive" - good for eliminating the passive voice "The program was very intensive" is already in the active voice: the subject of the sentence is "program", and the active verb is "to be." Use of the verb "to be" and its forms does not make something passive voice. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid grammatical terminology isn't my strong suit, so I apologise if I'm not making enough sense. All I mean to say is that the majority of Pedant17's edits to this article appear to be a result of searching for the words "is", "was" and "were", and rewording the sentences they appear in to remove those words, irrespective of whether we have enough information to accurately fill in the blanks. --McGeddon (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your characterization of Pedant17's edits. The point I was making was that those edits did nothing to improve the article; eliminating passive constructions might or might not improve an article, but eliminating the verb "to be" does not even qualify as "eliminating passive constructions," so Pedant17's edits fall short on two counts. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Pedant17

The issue raised for RfC ("Are the recent attempts at wording changes to the article text appropriate?") seems excessively vague. As I already stated on this talk-page, the discussion stems from a bulk-reversion of an edit covering about 16 changes which I made on June 4, 2009. We have discussed only a handful of those edits and their proposed revisions -- the rest seem uncontroversial, but unidentified and neglected.

The claim that I have "repeatedly attempted to introduce awkward passive voice wording to this article" has no merit whatsoever. On the contrary, I have edited to the opposite effect, thus turning:

• "it has been referenced in several works" into: "various works [...] have referenced Pressman"
• "Participants were taught [...], and were promised" into "est staff taught participants [...], and promised them"
• "Outrageous Betrayal was cited in a report" into "A [...] report [...] cited Outrageous Betrayal

Given that I have not introduced "passive voice wording", the attempted conclusion: "resulting in a degradation in the article's writing quality" has no logical foundation. Nevertheless, perhaps I should say a few words about my improvements to the style of the article. Despite repeated vague or inaccurate accusations, for example:

• a "degradation in the article's writing quality" (August 13, 2009)
• "many of these edits decreased the writing quality of the article" (June 9, 2009)
• "a degrade in writing quality" (June 13, 2009)
• "wholly unnecessary and superfluous, again a degrade in writing quality" (June 13, 2009)
• "a bunch of changes here as well that degraded the writing quality of the article" (13 June 2009)
• "changes, which make the writing quality of the article much more awkward" (July 4, 2009)
• "unless you can present any WP:RS sources [...] then this wording you are attempting to introduce is indeed simply superfluous, quite awkward, and a degradation in the article's writing quality (July 9, 2009)
• "Pedant17's changes are not constructive, and appears instead to be a disruptive attempt to import "passive voice" issues from another article talk page to here as well" (July 17, 2009)
• 'Again, "first appeared in print", is passive voice and a degradation in article quality' (July 23, 2009)
• "a degradation in the article's writing quality" (July 30, 2009)
• "You are making your own POV assumptions about the wording" (July 23, 2009)
• "POV wording style" (July 30, 2009)

I have seen few attempts at specific criticism of my proposed style; and in each case of such specific criticism I have defended my edits and/or proposed amendments in an attempt to achieve WP:CONSENSUS.

The canard that "Pedant17 has changed prior wording to introduce his own POV interpretation of history and events" I reject. I have changed existing text (:"prior wording") to express matters in a better style in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have asked for specific details of cases where I have allegedly introduced a "POV interpretation of history and events" -- I have received no such details. In the three edits cited, I did not knowingly or deliberately introduce any opinion that materially altered the facts and opinions presented. Prove otherwise, and I'll recant.

The list of three so-called "problematic changes" I do not regard as problematic:

1. In the case of changing "is a biography" to "presents a biography" I improved the style and promoted WP:NPOV, moving away from (debatable) definition to promote descriptive accuracy.
2. In the case of changing "first published in 1993" to "first appeared in print in 1993" I changed a past participle to a verb for structural reasons. In the light of discussion on this talk-page I have proposed and advocated a different version of the lead which restores the "published" wording (and its connotations). Highlighting this fragment as an example of "recent attempts at wording changes" misrepresents the state of play.
3. In the case of changing "The est training was a four-day..." to "The est training consisted of a four-day..." (a change not previously discussed on this talk-page) I once again promoted WP:NPOV and improved the formal style without changing any literal meaning. (I suspect we could improve on this wording even further.)

I have asked on this talk-page (July 29, 2009) for more detail on the charge of "making a small and inappropriate leap of WP:OR" in some (only some!) of my edits. I've received thus far no relevant response -- but perhaps this RfC will enlighten me. And if the comment related (as it might do) to the change of "participants were taught" to "est staff taught participants" -- then I have explained and justified this wording (July 23, 2009) --- without seeing any further objections. But I now offer an even better and more succinct wording for this passage: "participants learned [...]"

The accusation of my "bogging down talk page discussion at the page Talk:Alien (film) misrepresents User:McGeddon's account of discussion on that page getting bogged down. McGeddon made no such accusation against me.

The claim that "McGeddon also noted that Pedant17 has a tendency to POV push his personal preference of word usage across articles" misrepresents McGeddon's simple observation about some of my edits. McGeddon made no mention of any "tendency to POV push [...] word usage" (whatever that may mean). Nor did McGeddon generalize about "awkward wording changes without explanation". (If every style-improvement and every spelling-correction needs an explanation, I'll provide explanations. In the meantime I favor slightly bolder editing.)

Discussion on the wording about the intensity of est raises some interesting points. The suggested interpretation of "the program was very intensive" does not equate semantically to "promoters advertised [the program] as intensive". But interpreting it as "participants found the program very intensive" represents a reasonable and close paraphrase. I wrote on July 23: "I take the point that we have insufficient evidence as to who precisely saw the est program as intensive. A quote from McGurk's article might clear that matter up: absent that we can leave the matter indeterminate by stating "observers have labeled the program intensive" -- without giving the Wikipedic encyclopedic imprimatur that the program actually "was very intensive". Certainly others have described est as "intensive" -- but their opinions, however consistent, do not necessarily make it so. Safer to go for the NPOV approach and report the opinions rather than proclaiming the (possibly disputed) fact..." Here we can see Wikipedia at work: improvements generate objections and (ultimately) even better improvements. We have made progress and a better form of words has emerged for potential discussion and eventual incorporation into the article. How much more useful and instructive than bulk-reverting!

The suggestion that "the majority of Pedant17's edits to this article appear to be a result of searching for the words "is", "was" and "were", and rewording the sentences they appear in to remove those words" overlooks my many other edits and mis-characterizes my modus operandi. I read and edit Wikipedia with an eye to improvement -- of grammar, spelling, style, NPOV, links and factual content. If I noticeably and disproportionately eliminate several instances of "is", "was" and "were" in the process, this may hint at a poorly-written article in the first place.

It has never greatly concerned me that some fellow-Wikipedians confuse some uses of "to be" with the use of the passive voice -- I generally have much more interest in improving the clarity and style of individual sentences. But because some people do confuse the two does not necessarily mean that "Pedant17's edits fall short on two counts". On the contrary, my edits aim to "improve [the] article", and I welcome constructive specific comments/re-edits which further this goal.

To the charge of "clumsy wording" I plead guilty -- sometimes. Not every edit ends up sounding felicitous, and sometimes my esthetic instincts fail. But the edits under discussion meet the requirements of "readable English", and we must sometimes trade off an easy flow and "elegant succinct wording" against NPOV and/or less ambiguity and/or more information. Bulk reversion does not assist in this ongoing editing process.

I encourage all commentators in this RfC to read the talk-page thoroughly and to consider the arguments raised in their context over time -- rejecting mere assertions and suspending any prejudices as to their own preferred wordings.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comment by MartinPoulter

The edits linked by Cirt do seem to, in general, replace elegant, succinct wording with a more clumsy wording. I'm not saying that the text being edited is perfect, nor that all Pedant17's contributions are unhelpful . Pedantry is desirable and necessary when writing an encyclopedia, but then so is readable English. I agree on the whole that the discussed changes introduce awkward language, with no gain in accuracy to justify it. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by IceCreamEmpress

I think there is a significant difference in connotation between "published" and "appeared in print." "Appeared in print" could refer to vanity-published works, whereas it's not usual to use "published" to refer to that category. Since the book was issued by the very mainstream publisher St. Martin's Press, "published" seems like not only a more concise, but a more accurate (in terms of connotation) choice of words than "appeared in print. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussing Pedant17's edits

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

---

Given the way the above discussion is going, I think we might as well just look through the edits point by point, and pick out the sentences where it's felt that Pedant17 has either made an inappropriate leap of WP:OR or reduced a sentence's readability, when removing a form of the verb "to be". Is this diff a fair one to discuss point-by-point? Are you happy to concede that where editors agree an edit has reduced the readability, or has made a claim unsupported by the source, it can have the word "is" or "was" reintroduced? --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I should probably point out that this issue is endemic to Pedant17, and has been brought up on his talk page (and other places, such as talk:Dell by multiple editors over a long period. It is by no means restricted to this article; have a look at any article where he's made multiple edits (especially those featuring the one-word summary "copyedits") and you'll see the same pattern. The editor has refused to acknowledge any consensus on the matter because it isn't explicitly prohibited. At this stage a more long-term resolution may be needed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed some prescriptivism around, but Wikipedia exhibits robust variety and common-sense in rejecting too much of that. If you detect a pattern, it may indicate a pattern of improvement. If you detect a consensus on such matters, please let me know -- and I'll look into the "issue". We can certainly discuss any edits, and I welcome your specific comments on the substance of each of the 16-odd sentences at stake in this article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The pattern is one of you ignoring consensus, repeatedly rewriting prose in your manner after having been reverted by multiple editors, and causing others to have to clean up after you when your efforts at "improvement" result in comma-heavy contrivances such as this edit to Bulgaria (although I would note that I'm grateful to you for not repeating this in your recent edit to said article's lede). It is precisely because you do not consider anything less than a direct mandate from policy to be "consensus" that this is still an issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I happen to regard the consensus of Wikipedia Policy as more important than ad-hoc "consensus" apparently manufactured as a seemingly easy stick with which to beat at my edits. I make no apology for following policy consensus. Recall that WP:CONSENSUS prescribes: "you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it." Let's talk policy, not opinion. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Cirt called for a point-by-point discussion on June 4: "Can we please discuss these changes individually [...]". I asked on June 9 for specific objections to each of the 16 or so separate sentences affected. Since then we have discussed a lot of generalities and very few specifics -- though each specific I have responded to. By all means let's go back and do the whole process systematically. But it would waste time to continue doing anything on the basis of what editors feel ("[...] it's felt [...]"): we need something more concrete than that, and with tighter reference to specifics of Wikipedia policies. Similarly, it would distort the process to "pick out the sentences" based on only two specific points at issue (WP:OR and readability. Other factors may come in to play in each case! -- I regard that diff as the best basis of discussion. But note that the article has moved on in some details, and that consensus-building on this talk-page has thrown up some better proposals already. -- We can certainly take into account the essay at Wikipedia:Readability, but matters of accuracy and NPOV-policy carry much more weight. As for making claims not supported by sources, standard Wikipedia conventions apply. I'd like to see chapter and verse quoted from the sources for the contentious claims made about them, for example. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Chapter and verse", is not needed, the citations already satisfy WP:V. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When we lack (for example) direct quotations from the original sources, it becomes all too easy to proclaim that those sources support one particular stylistic twist rather than another. Hence my reliance on direct quotes and paraphrases from from specific quoted sources -- in contradistinction to repeated claims that "the sources already present in the article support the current wording". They do -- but we can align our wording with them more closely and accurately, thereby improving our article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To satisfy verifiability, page numbers are provided in the citations. Quotations are not needed, as one can verify and check the sources. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have referenced neither page-numbers nor quotations in proclaiming that the sources support your preferred wording. I have given exact quotations to support my preferred wording. Which approach do you find the more helpful in furthering debate and making matters transparent to fellow-Wikipedians? -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, and note that page numbers are in fact provided in the citations. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I will take this matter to WP:ANI if Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to make large scale edits that reduce the quality of the article's text. Cirt (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never made "large scale edits that reduce the quality of the article's text". You have not succeeded in proving that or explaining how I have done what you accuse me of. Rather than appeal for administrator intervention, why not discuss the issues in a grounded manner and work through your objections to my improvements? -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have dragged this discussion on long enough for literally months, despite dispute resolution and a RfC the consensus of which was not in your favor. Please stop. This discussion is not productive or constructive. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

So we do have something to discuss, after all

On November 9, 2009, at 0433 hours, a Wikipedian undid my much-discussed edits to this article, claiming "violation of RFC". When I reverted "in the light of archived talk-page discussion" the same Wikipedian promptly re-reverted, once again appealing to "violation of RFC" and referred vaguely on my talk-page to "non-consensus edits to the article Outrageous Betrayal". -- As the Wikipedia policy WP:CCC states: '"according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action'. So I call for further discussion on the evolved proposed improvements. Let's return to the point where I last appealed for discussion and answers to queries -- before a fellow-editor arbitrarily declared the matter resolved by the previous RfC (despite ongoing discussion) and effectively closed down discussion as "not productive or constructive" and archived the talk-page. -- Pedant17 (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue was already discussed. At length. For months. By multiple editors. And had a WP:RFC. The result of which was consensus that these exact types of edits by Pedant17 (talk · contribs) are not constructive, and degrade the quality of this article. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, [17]. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC took place. The call for an RfC misrepresented the situation and mis-characterized the issues. Nevertheless, discussion in that RfC (and subsequently) reached no consensus as described: rather the reverse, as I have demonstrated. Repeatedly. Perhaps someone can explain to me why we should not improve the article with my edits. Failing that, I propose to re-apply them. -- Pedant17 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please use peer review, as I requested on your talk page. I want to avoid a one-on-one dispute with you, and nobody is endorsing your preferred version. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My invitation to the Wikipedia community to join in discussion stands; my points remain unanswered, my issues unaddressed. If other editors cannot or will not use the talk-page to help improve the article, they forfeit any right to unilaterally impose a disputed version, and may need to find some other - less suitable - venue for debate. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is being imposed unilaterally. It has been made quite clear that there was already a Request for Comment on the issue, where your edits were not supported. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion in the RfC touched on some (only some) of my proposed edits. The discussion ended with justification and revision of those edits. I've seen no refutation of the discussion -- only unilateral rejection of any further editing. So lacking an explanation of the fossilization of the article, I'll go back to editing, OK? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the bulk of your copyediting, it's just an issue when you rephrase a sentence to fit the rules of E-Prime, at the expense of clarity or - where you have to make a WP:OR guess at the actor of a verb quoted from a source - accuracy. There's clear enough consensus and policy against edits which make an article harder to read, or which introduce assumptions which weren't there before. If you keep your edits sourced and clearly written, that's fine. --McGeddon (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon - the E-Prime-style edits by Pedant17 (talk · contribs) are not helpful. I also agree with McGeddon regarding consensus that these edits reduce the quality and ease of reading of the article. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since User:McGeddon did not regard my edits as unhelpful, we can disregard the claim of agreement with User:McGeddon on this point. Furthermore, since User:McGeddon has not stated that "these edits reduce the quality and ease of reading of the article", we can disregard the claim of agreement with User:McGeddon on this point as well. No editor has made any further points which would raise cogent or specific objections to the edits I propose.to take as the basis of a forthcoming improvement to the article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have misread my comment, I specifically objected to you rewording sentences into E-Prime at the expense of clarity and accuracy. You're welcome to make the edit, but other editors will reword any content they feel has been made less clear or less readable. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since none of my edits compromised clarity or accuracy (on the contrary!), I take your generalized comment as an endorsement. I welcome the work of fellow-editors who will re-word my contributions on the basis of policy. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That diff appears to include a number of edits specifically singled out as "awkward" in the RFC. I'd endorse everything in that edit apart from the sentences you have reworded to remove the word "is" or "was", all of which I'd say degraded the quality of the article's writing. --McGeddon (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that comprises the bulk of editing by Pedant17 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the vague claim made here, I invite my fellow-Wikipedian to re-state it clearly and then to produce statistical evidence to back it up. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's examine the two (2) edits which the ill-fated RfC "specifically singled out" and discussed in terms of ill-defined "awkwardness" (which the Manual of Style mentions only in terms of limited specific cases) and compare my currently proposed edits:

• Changing wording from "is a biography" to "presents a biography..."
  • My proposed edits of November 9, 2009 recast the sentence such that the wording "presents a biography" does not replace "is a biography", but appears in a different context,

• "The est training was a four-day..." changed to "The est training consisted of a four-day..."
  • My proposed edits of November 9, 2009 no longer contain the formulation "consisted of a four-day..." but reads more succinctly (and possibly more accurately) "comprised a four-day ...].

Accordingly, I find the contention that '[t]hat diff appears to include a number of edits specifically singled out as "awkward" in the RFC' unsustainable.

I reject the allegation that I have "reworded" any sentences with the purpose of removing 'the word "is" or "was".' On the contrary, as I have already explained, such re-wordings flow naturally from my attempts to make the article more and more clear, concise, acurate, NPOV and encyclopedic. I have explained how my proposed changes further those goals. If anyone wants to say that such changes "degraded the quality of the article's writing", let's hear the reasons for that opinion so we can debate the issues (rather than simply declaring personal value-judgments).

-- Pedant17 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Comprised" is fine, but "Outrageous Betrayal, a book written by Steven Pressman, presents a biography" flows less cleanly than "Outrageous Betrayal is a biography written by Steven Pressman". WP:TONE supports this view that articles should "follow the style used by reliable sources"; newspapers and reviews are not written in E-Prime. --McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Purely in terms of flow, "is a biography written by Steven Pressman" might arguably sound slicker than "a book written by Steven Pressman, presents a biography". But we have more going on here than mere flow: we have introduced the concept of a book (with all that that implies) to supplement and extend the concept of a biography (without in any way superseding that). We have provided more and more accurate detail and allowed better WP:NPOV by not insisting exclusively on regarding our subject purely as a biography. More detail, more accuracy, better NPOV: more encyclopedic. -- I wholeheartedly agree that WP:TONE endorses the formal style used by reliable sources generically -- not of course confined to newspapers and reviews. But the claim in passing that "newspapers and reviews are not written in E-Prime" amazes me. Some newspapers and reviews use little E-Prime: one might think of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or Le Monde (which default to writing in languages other than English). But look at (say) a review in (say) a respected newspaper, The Sunday Times: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/fiction/article6199992.ece -- 42.11 percent of the sentences (excluding direct quotes) just happen to use E-Prime.Counting individual (non-quoted) clauses, I find that 69.23 percent just happen to use E-Prime. -- Try another respected newspaper review from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/books/review/Holt-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all -- with 46.38 percent of the sentences just happening to use E-Prime throughout, and 65.38 percent of the clauses. -- One last sample of a newspaper: the Zimbabwe Herald http://www1.herald.co.zw/inside.aspx?sectid=14874&livedate=1/30/2010%2012:00:00%20AM&cat=3 -- with 54.17 percent of non-quoted sentences in E-Prime and 71.79 percent of non-quoted clauses. (That example has lot of excluded interview-style quotes.) -- Whatever the strictures and guidelines of different newspaper/review editorial policies, I don't accept the claim that "newspapers and reviews are not written in E-Prime". They show flexibility in style depending on the needs and desires of the moment, writing in E-Prime as appropriate -- and we as editors of Wikipedia can boldly emulate them in doing likewise. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean that newspaper articles are not written entirely in E-Prime - obviously many sentences happen not to include certain words. If newspapers use the word "is", "was" and "be" in about 30% of their sentences, that's fine; it means we should expect to find about the same in a Wikipedia article, and I imagine this is the case. WP:TONE does not support the 100% E-Prime article you appear to be promoting. --McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How unfortunate that you did not write what you meant. It seems a very bold leap to assume that newspapers (apart from any other reliable sources) might become prescriptive models for using certain words in about 30% of Wikipedia articles. I do hope that my random samples of text (especially from Zimbabwe) -- gathered to prove a quite different point -- have not influenced your esthetic judgment. Surely we can optimize each sentence as appropriate, depending on its function and content, whether or not it happens "not to include certain words" prescriptively. WP:TONE does not even mention E-Prime, and I have never promoted a 100% E-Prime policy, despite your assumptions and allegations. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that endorsement - I look forward to continuing to contribute clear and accurate edits. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pedant17, if by "to take as the basis of a forthcoming improvement to the article" you mean to simply revert back (again) to your mass edits to the article that were not supported by consensus after a Request for Comment specifically on the issue, then, no, that would be disruptive in nature. If you mean to go forward with one edit of a more minor nature and discuss one-by-one on the talk page, that would be most appreciated and more conducive to positive collaboration. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My reference to proposed edits on the basis of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=prev&oldid=324763226 cannot involve "mass edits", as those edits involved only eleven sentences in seven paragraphs and only clarify and refine and extend existing material with minimal wording-changes and a mere 685 extra characters overall. We have had ample opportunity to discuss these seven paragraphs "one-by-one" and refine consensus on this talk-page since November 9, 2009, and no sustainable objections to my edits has emerged. If you have specific objections to specific wordings on the basis of specific policy, then let's hear them. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Those edits have been discussed and do not have consensus. Please suggest one specific change, and we can then discuss it, here, first. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC to which you refer discussed few of the currently proposed edits in their currently proposed form. Subsequent more focused discussion has produced a wealth of argument in favor of change and only a few oft-repeated, unsubstantiated and mis-directed objections. Do you have any specific comments on specific parts of the proposed edit? -- Re the proposal of making one specific discussable change at a time: I have discussed since November 9, 2009, the outcome of a single specific change: the reversion which undid a small series of minor improvements and dismissed them all with the inappropriate edit-comment "disruption in violation of RFC". I have subsequently justified several of my proposed improvements and I have repeatedly appealed for focus on the issues I have raised. -- If you wanted point-by-point discussion, you could have reverted my minor edits one by one. You can still boldly restore my proposed edits and then revert each of those you still object to. That approach might at least identify and precisify any remaining concerns. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of your edits remove the words "is" and "was" and replace them with extremely more awkward wording that degrades the quality of the article's text. These changes were not supported by the RFC. For you to continue to make such changes, especially in light of the RFC that does not support them, is disruptive in nature. Cirt (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

All of my edits (as opposed to my new contributions) improve the wording of articles and enhance the quality of the text of those articles. (If you can prove (as opposed to asserting) otherwise, please do so.) If in the process my edits eliminate sloppy and clumsy usage of "is" or or "was" then so be it. -- The last RfC for this article did not support the changes currently under discussion -- for the simple reason that it addressed (albeit confusedly and inaccurately) different changes.I suggest we discuss the current changes, rather than hark back to a superseded RfC. Without relevant discussion, opposition to evolving improvements becomes disruptive. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The last RFC did discuss these sorts of changes. As did a subsequent ANI thread, which did not support the changes by Pedant17 (talk · contribs). I double-checked and went back over the recent disruption to the article by Pedant17 (talk · contribs) - and the mass edits were removals of the words "is" and "was", against consensus. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The latest RfC relating to this article did not discuss the currently proposed edits: it specifically originated on 2009-08-13 in relation to "the recent attempts at wording changes to the article text". Insofar as that RfC did discuss similar changes, the discussion there ended on 2009-08-24 with the endorsement or suggested modification of the changes then discussed. I urge anyone to prove (rather than assert) otherwise. Repeated appeals to the old and outmoded RfC with a view to discouraging proposed improvements to the article seem both irrelevant and misguided. -- The subsequent thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion of incidents once again resulted in a point-by-point justification of my proposed edits, an adequate explanation of my editing behavior and a suggestion for more discussion on a point-by-point basis -- as I have advocated and tried to encourage (in vain) by putting forward reasons and justifications for some months now. Claiming that the discussion "did not support the changes" ignores the tenor and flow of the arguments made. I urge anyone to prove (rather than assert) otherwise. -- Statements made about "the recent disruption to the article by Pedant17 (talk · contribs)" have no referent -- for I have not (_ever_) disrupted the orderly editing of the article. If however we wish to discuss the last set of improvements which I made to the article (on 2009-12-13) we can do so. I would point out that that my improvements to the article on that occasion did not involve any "mass edits": they affected approximately 16 sentences in a mere 7 paragraphs in a an article of 20 paragraphs which grew in the process from 33,526 characters to 34,211 characters. As for the specifically mentioned bugbears "is" and "was": I count 1 change involving "is" and 6 involving "was". My edits involving those words affected fewer than half of the sentences I enhanced. Of the edits which did involve the highlighted words, two merely follow the consensus of the Wikipedia guideline frowning on passive constructions (and especially on using "passive voice constructs to avoid attributing words or actions to the appropriate speaker or subject, or to omit any other important detail from a sentence"). I'll happily discuss any specific objections to my changes -- and indeed have already done so in the case of several of them. -- Let me point out too that I know of no consensus that frowns in principle on substituting better or more accurate style for 'the words "is" and "was"'. Let's see the evidence of such consensus if it exists. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The prior RFC dealt with this issue. The prior RFC did not support your changes. The majority of comments in the prior RFC by respondents other than yourself were not demonstrable of a consensus to support your changes, but rather to oppose them. Cirt (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I note the claim that "the prior RFC" dealt with this issue. The RfC of August 2009 discussed the appropriateness of "the recent attempts at wording changes to the article text". We've moved forward from those days and from those proposed edits. -- I note the claim that "the prior RFC did not support [my] changes". Discussion within that RfC ended with nobody replying to my defenses and suggestions. -- I note the claim that "the majority of comments in the prior RFC by respondents other than yourself were not demonstrable of a consensus to support your changes, but rather to oppose them". Apart from overlooking the Wikipedia WP:NOTDEMOCRACY policy (which emphasizes discussion rather than vote-counting, this claim overlooks the fact that several of the comments posted gave (guarded) support to some of my edits, noting that issues appeared "fairly minor" and that not "all Pedant17's contributions are unhelpful". Other comments (as pointed out at the time) lacked accuracy or relevance. Still others made only vague (and unsubstantiated) accusations. But above all, nobody contested my justifications. As a means of establishing consensus, the RfC of last August failed overall to oppose my (then) lines of editing. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit also removes three instances of the word "were" and two of the word "been", per E-Prime rules. The only part of your linked edit that doesn't involve rewording a sentence to meet the rules of E-Prime (and the only part of it that I'd support) is nine words of simple copyediting to the second paragraph, and adding the word "to" to the final paragraph. --McGeddon (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the extra statistics: I do find that facts help in discussions. Apart from just happening to "meet the rules of E-Prime", though, my edits also happen to obey the rules of English grammar and the dictates of English spelling and the recommendations of Wikipedia policy and the guidelines of esthetic style. In fact, you'll note that all the edits I've suggested here involve mere "simple copyediting". If you have any objections to copyediting Wikipedia text, lets hear them, specifically. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of words Is and Was

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

---

Is it appropriate to remove the words "is" and "was", throughout the article? 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please do not have threaded comments within your subsection, limit your subsection to your own comments. Threaded discussion may take place in the subsection, Further discussion. 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Prior dispute resolution:

• August 2009 - Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#RfC:_Recent_wording_edits_to_article

Previously involved editors

Comments from Cirt

• Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has a history of disruption at this article - in edits that primarily remove the words "is" and "was" and replace them with more awkward wording, which degrades the writing quality of this article.
• In prior dispute resolution, consensus in a Request for Comment (August 2009) did not support the edits by Pedant17.

Disruption by Pedant17

Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the consensus of the prior RfC:

• 08:24, 4 June 2009
• 01:40, 24 April 2009
• 04:07, 12 March 2009
• 02:11, 9 November 2009
• 04:58, 13 December 2009

These edits show a pattern of disruption by Pedant17.

Related issues with Pedant17

• Prior individual dispute resolution, a User Conduct RFC - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pedant17
• Pattern of bogging down talk page discussion at the article Alien (film) from a period of February 2009 to January 2010 (Talk:Alien_(film)#Reversion_procedure). See also comment by McGeddon about this issue, "a lot of your edits seem to be about removing the passive voice, and this seems to be the second talk page conversation where you're trying to agree on a wording without explicitly explaining to the other editors that you are strongly against any sentence involving the word "is".".
• Similar pattern at Talk:Dell#Lead_sentence_structure.
• November 2009 - ANI report = see comments by McGeddon regarding pattern of Pedant17 falsely construing absence of continued comments in opposition to his disruptive changes as evidence for him to continue with the disruptive behavior pattern, in other words, misapplying perceived silence as a form of consensus - forcing individual editors to continue to respond to Pedant17's ad nauseam talk page postings.

Desired results

• Assess consensus regarding pattern of disruption by Pedant17 on this article.
• Determine if consensus does not support pattern of disruptive editing on this article by Pedant17.

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from McGeddon

I'd add that the issue is a little wider than just the words "is" and "was" - User:Pedant17 is removing any form of the verb "to be", as per the grammar of E-Prime. The question here is whether the benefit of rephrasing an article into perfect E-Prime is worth the cost of reducing its clarity or accuracy. Per WP:TONE ("follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable"), I think Pedant17 is pushing his or her personal preference for E-Prime too far, and is reducing the quality of the article.

I'd welcome a user conduct RfC on the separate issue of this user's attitude to discussing and reverting these changes. --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Thumperward (Chris Cunningham)

This is less of an issue with this particular article and more of an issue with Pedant17, as evidenced by exactly the same chain of events having taken place at Talk:Dell and Talk:Alien (film) (see those discussions for several identical examples in other articles). The user's deliberate omission of the specific nature of the changes he's making both from discussion and from his edit summaries, along with this issue being over a year old now, indicates that he's aware that his changes are controversial and thus he's attempting to obfuscate them. The user previously attempted to argue for changes to WP:LEDE which would make E-Prime more acceptable or prominent on Wikipedia with no success, so it's not as if this is a content issue which could be taken somewhere more central. To be honest it's less about the specific changes (which plainly do not have consensus as dealt with by the previous RfC, and indeed which only Pedant17 supports) and more about Pedant17's conduct, both here and elsewhere. I'd have preferred for this to be a user conduct RfC. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Pedant17

In answer to the question posed as the theme of the RfC: NO -- it is NOT appropriate to remove the words "is" and "was" throughout the article. What a silly idea! Any occurrence of "is" or "was" in direct quotations should remain untouched. In any other case, sensitive editing will NEVER "remove" words like "is" and "was" without substituting any other required elements to preserve or enhance the sense and flow of the article. In each case, editors have the right -- even the duty -- to improve the article by rewording if appropriate and helpful.

A comment on the previous RfC of August 2009: I characterized the August RfC as "excessively vague", and it appeared to resolve little, with differences as to how to interpret it and as to its very relevance continuing. My hopes that it would shed some light on apparent objections to my (then) proposed edits came to little. I do however see some signs of a deeper and more constructive engagement with the issues on this occasion.

I note that a fellow-editor has mentioned "disruption" of the article. I have never disrupted editing of the article: ever since I became aware that (for never-elucidated reasons) some other editor(s) bulk-disapproved of my proposed edits I have followed Wikipedia protocols by discussing my edits thoroughly on the article talk-page and have developed them in response to feedback before -- occasionally -- feeling able to apply them to the article. The only pattern of disruptions I can recall at this article in the past few months have each involved the rapid near-total reversion of each and every one of my proposed edits on largely spurious and unsubstantiated grounds. Thus:

• 04:07, 12 March 2009 with the edit-comment "copyediting"
  • comprehensively reverted by 16:24, 12 March 2009 (but with some surviving substitutions of "was": see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outrageous_Betrayal&action=historysubmit&diff=276772012&oldid=273969781 )

• 01:40, 24 April 2009 with the edit-comment "copyedits"
  • substantially reverted by 02:08, 24 April 2009.

• my edits of 08:24, 4 June 2009 with the edit-comment "improve style"
  • completely reverted at 08:43, 4 June 2009 with the edit-comment "edits decreased writing quality, please discuss individually on talkpg"

• 02:11, 9 November 2009 with the edit-comment "copyedit; especially in the light of archived talk-page discussions"
  • completely reverted at 04:33, 9 November 2009 with the edit-comment "disruption in violation of RFC"

• 04:58, 13 December 2009 with the edit-comment "revert in the light of archived talk-page discussion"
  • completely reverted at 07:37, 13 December 2009 with the edit-comment "tendentious editing by Pedant17 in violation of RFC"

I note reference (once again) to the alleged "consensus of the prior RfC". I have repeatedly disputed on the talk-page the nature of consensus (if any) resulting from that RfC (most recently in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=344325557&oldid=344324084 ) -- seemingly to no avail. I have pointed out on the talk-page too that consensus can change -- to no apparent avail. (As a reminder: WP:CCC states that '"according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions'.) My repeated appeals (on the talk-page) to specific policies and guidelines as representative of broader consensus have not met with approval -- or even with serious debate,

I note reference to an historic User Conduct RFC] of March 2008. Though that RfC provided sage advice on dispute-resolution and the careful application of the term "consensus", it has little relevance to the issue of writing a better Outrageous Betrayal page by using (or not using) the words "is" and "was".

I make no apology for discussing matters on talk-pages. I wish some other editors would use the talk-pages for discussion of facts and points, rather than for abuse and for repetitious claims. I stand by my comments, explanations, justifications and repeated pleas for issues-based discussion at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal and at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal/Archive 1, for example (in reverse order of date):

• 2010-02-16
• 2010-02-15
• 2010-02-07
• 2010-02-03
• 2010-02-01
• 2010-01-02
• 2010-01-01
• 2009-12-26
• 2009-12-15
• 2009-09-19
• 2009-09-13
• 2009-09-08
• 2009-09-01
• 2009-08-30
• 2009-08-28
• 2009-08-24
• 2009-08-13
• 2009-07-29
• 2009-07-23

etc.

I note the move to bring discussion of E-Prime into this RfC at a late stage. This may confuse matters in an RfC specifically called on the use of just two words. Some comment even tends to suggest that the use of E-Prime brings inherent disadvantages and that one should automatically frown upon it! The characterization of my editing as "pushing" or "enforc[ing]" or "insist[ing] on" E-Prime and behaving doctrinairely in this respect ignores my protestations and demonstrations to the contrary - I do none of these things. I use E-Prime as one tool in a range of approaches to help write and copy-edit clear, unambiguous, policy-compliant articles (such as the E-Prime article itself, which I first edited in August 2005), and urge that we focus on that outcome.

The suggestion that I "previously attempted to argue for changes to WP:LEDE which would make E-Prime more acceptable or prominent on Wikipedia with no success" has no basis in fact. I did succeed in arguing for the removal of a short-lived requirement at WP:LEDE which would have placed excessive restrictions on lede-sentences -- thus reverting policy to the status quo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section&offset=20090408065752&limit=500&action=history for discussion in February 2008, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section&diff=189451791&oldid=189291025 .

I welcome constructive points of discussion, such as the suggestion that some of my edits change meanings. Let's see examples, so we can determine whether any changes in meaning add to or detract from the article overall.

I note a hint of "vandalizing" accompanied by a query as to whether I have explained my reasoning. Once again, please see the talk-page for repeated examples of explanations of my conduct and of my reasoning - and for the almost complete absence of counter-reasoning by other editors. If I have left anything of importance unexplained, I will endeavor to remedy the omission.

I've seen repeated allegations of "clumsiness" and "awkwardness" in my proposed edits. More quoted examples please, so we can (further) discuss whether such clumsiness/awkwardness has crept in, and whether other factors outweigh accuracy and balance.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comments from Maurreen

1. User:Pedant17's removal of linking verbs, including "is" and "was," go against consensus.
2. User:Pedant17's repeated removal of these words is not cooperative.
3. A number of these changes by User:Pedant17 change the meaning. Maurreen (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Elmmapleoakpine

It almost seems like Pedant17 is vandalizing the article. I understand why Cirt is upset, he has put a great deal of work into this article. Has Pedant17 explained his reasoning? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Martin Hogbin

Although User:Pedant17's copyediting improves the English style in many cases he needs to explain why he is attempting to enforce the use of E-prime on this article. There is clearly no consensus to use this style. Is there any special connection between E-prime and the subject of the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Pattern of disruption

Regarding the above comment by Thumperward (Chris Cunningham), I would agree that if we also look at:

1. This talk page and history already described above.
2. Talk:Dell
3. Talk:Alien (film)

Then there is indeed a larger pattern of disruption regarding behavior by Pedant17 (talk · contribs). Unfortunately if that does not cease after the conclusion of this RFC, further steps of dispute resolution may indeed be necessary. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevance of E-Prime

In response to User:Martin Hogbin's question; no, I'm not aware of any connection between E-Prime and the subject of this article, E-Prime is just a personal writing preference that Pedant17 applies to any article he edits. But if there were a connection, this wouldn't be any reason to write the entire article in E-Prime - even the E-Prime article itself is not written in E-Prime! --McGeddon (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess any editor is entitled to use their own writing style in editing WP, provided it is not harmful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of a "writing style" - all editors have writing styles, and all editors accept that if they happen to write something which is clumsy or unclear, future editors will copyedit it. Pedant17 is continually insisting that the article be written in E-Prime, and is opposing any editors who copyedit it for clarity in a way that breaks the rules of E-Prime. This RFC is essentially asking whether WP:TONE ("follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable") is more or less important than an article fitting the rules of E-Prime. --McGeddon (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No one editor has the right to insist that the article is written entirely in E-Prime but neither does anyone have the right to insist that it is not. When Pedant17 has made his 'copyedits' it seems that the usual response is to revert. It does not seem to me that his editing has made the edited section uniformly worse, maybe some of his edits are improvements. I have not followed the history of the article but has anyone tried changing just the parts of Pedant17's that they consider to be in worse style than the original? My point is that if Pedant's only purpose is to rewrite the article entirely in E-Prime without a consensus (which there clearly is not) this is not acceptable. If, on the other hand, he is improving the style of the article, using his own style of writing then perhaps cooperative editing might be the solution. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The majority of Pedant17's edits degrade the writing quality of the article, by pushing out E-Prime usage. It is not just one editor, but a consensus of multiple different editors that agree that the actions of Pedant17 are inappropriate and disruptive in nature. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that editors here have tried just changing the sections of Pedant17's edits that are clumsy or unclear? If so, when this happens does Pedant17 simply revert or does he try to rewrite the changed section in a different way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I went back through them, but I am not sure what parts of the edits, if any, were constructive in nature. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with most of Pedant17's edits, therefore his edits should not be reverted just because they do not contain the verb 'to be'. Some of his edits seem to me to improve the style whereas some do not. Why not just change the bad bits? Try working with him rather than edit warring. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of the edits do you suggest that you feel are constructive in nature? If you could give a specific example, that would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: In response to above comments by Martin Hogbin, I have gone back and taken another look at some of the edits by Pedant17. I did a partial restore of some of the changes, leaving out the E-Prime usage stuff that degraded the writing quality of the article [18], [19]. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In the diffs quoted above to show examples of disruption, my general feeling is that Pedant17's versions are rather more encyclopedic, I see no justification for just reverting his edits. I am not sure of the relevance of your diffs. Neither seems to add back the verb 'to be' in any form, they were just minor style changes. I presume Pedant17 did not revert your changes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and I have restored those, so hopefully you will see that this is a good thing. :) Cirt (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, reverting isn't the usual response - Pedant17's edits have only been reverted here twice; once after he rejected an RFC against him and rewrote everything in E-Prime "in the light of archived talk-page discussions", and again immediately afterwards when Pedant17 reverted that revert. The edit history for the last year clearly shows Pedant17 rewriting the article in E-Prime, Cirt making incremental changes for clarity, and Pedant17 returning to remove any forms of the verb "to be" that may have crept in (with an edit summary of "copyediting" or "improve style"). --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I read this after writing my suggestion below. If it is clear that Pedant17 is just being awkward then I would fully support your efforts to prevent him from negatively editing the page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent]Having done that, I suggest that you now change just the bits that you consider to be clumsy or difficult to understand. Maybe you misunderstand me, I am not saying that Pedant17's edits are perfect, just that his edits should not be reverted in their entirety just because they do not contain the verb to be. Maybe this does not have to be war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make a specific suggestion, as an example? Cirt (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were complaining that P17's edits were clumsy or difficult to understand. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, mainly due to E-Prime. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be just objecting in principle. Give me an example of a something you consider clumsy or difficult to understand. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one objecting. There is a consensus of other editors as well, all of whom that were previously-uninvolved in this discussion prior to the 1st RFC on this issue. It is easy to see an example. Just look for any instance where Pedant17 removes words "is", "was", other uses of "to be", and replaces it with more awkward wording that degrades the writing quality level of the article. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at cases where the verb 'to be' has been replaced and they do not all make the writing quality worse. Can you give me a specific example of a sentence where the writing quality has been degraded. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"it has been referenced" --> "have referenced...", etc. However, I must say that McGeddon (talk · contribs) is more skilled than I at pointing out the problems with Pedant17 pushing out E-Prime usage. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples

If you'll forgive the long quotes:-

• "Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile is a biography of Werner Erhard written by legal journalist Steven Pressman." becomes "Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile, a book written by legal journalist Steven Pressman, presents a biography of Werner Erhard and an account of the practices and organizations associated with Erhard." - which is maybe fine (I haven't read the book), but Pedant17 was originally just writing it as "presents a biography", and it concerns me a little that he is tacking on "and an account of the practices" purely to defend the sentence being written in E-Prime. All biographies write about the "practices and organizations" of their subject, so I'm not sure how much we're misleading the reader by presenting it as equal parts biography and "account". — McGeddon , — (continues after insertion below.)

I agree that "presents a biography" is bad and appears to be based on dogma rather than style. Surely, the answer is to just change this bit, not revert the whole edit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Think along the lines of "includes a biographical account of ..." -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I say, Pedant17 was only reverted when he misinterpreted the previous RFC as being in his favour and reapplied his E-Prime edits. Hopefully the current approach of only copyediting problem sentences will clear this up. --McGeddon (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The summaries above and an examination of the edits in question contradict the claims that reversions happened only after the inconclusive RfC and refute any suggestion that they related solely to "his E-Prime edits". -- Pedant17 (talk)

It helps to have read the book, which includes a quite detailed account of the history, personalities and practices of est and of Werner Erhard and Associates. My addition of "an account of the practices..." adds information and balance to the description of the book. The allegation of "purely to defend the sentence being written in E-Prime" lacks any evidence. -- What do you find more alarming: the suggestion that the book treats of more than one topic, or the book getting dismissed as having only one topic? -- You do recall that the Library of Congress does not classify the book as a biography? and you will have seen the talk-page discussions of other labels placed on the book? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Testimony within the United States House of Representatives has cited Pressman's book for historical background on Erhard and his companies, and it has been referenced in books on psychology, cults and new religious movements." becomes "Testimony within the United States House of Representatives has cited Pressman's book for historical background on Erhard and his companies, and books on psychology, cults and new religious movements have referenced Pressman." - the latter reads as if the House of Representatives cited Pressman's book alongside books on psychology and cults, until the reader hits the end of the sentence and realises that no, these are unrelated psychology and cult books. This edit makes nothing clearer or easier to read, it just removes the word "been". — McGeddon , — (continues after insertion below.)

I personally agree that the first sentence is slightly clearer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. My edit of April 24, 2009 used the wording: "Testimony within the United States House of Representatives has cited Pressman's book for historical background on Erhard and his companies, and it has been referenced in several works on psychology, cults and new religious movements." But we can avoid the stylistically questionable passive and the semantic run-on with a very simple punctuation edit: try: "Testimony within the United States House of Representatives has cited Pressman's book for historical background on Erhard and his companies; and books on psychology, cults and new religious movements have referenced Pressman." -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These are admittedly fairly mild examples; a stronger illustration from another article (which seems relevant, if this RFC is about the general practice of E-Prime usage) would be Pedant17's ongoing attempts to reword the standard-Wikipedia-lead sentence of Alien (film) from "Alien is a 1979 science fiction horror film directed by Ridley Scott." to clumsy E-Prime sentences such as "Alien, a 1979 science-fiction/horror film, has become an influential classic." or "Ridley Scott directed the 1979 science fiction horror film Alien from an original story by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett." --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I will lie low for a while and see how it goes. What I am proposing is that all editors edit purely from the point of view of improving clarity and style. Edits should not be made on the principle that the article should or should not be written in E-prime. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This proposal expresses my sentiments and (I trust) my practice in editing -- exactly. Thank you for your effective comments. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see little relevance of discussion of another article to an RfC on two words in the the current article. But since you brought it up: you have omitted to list my other alternatives for the Alien lead -- both the working suggestions and the current more refined ones. You have also omitted to explain what makes my efforts "clumsy". -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

E-Prime and the subject of the article

In answer to the question from User:Martin Hogbin as to whether any special connection exists between E-Prime and the subject of the article: yes. Books and biographies have no special relevance, but insofar as the Outrageous Betrayal book deals with Erhard Seminars Training or est, then obvious connections exist. Apart from the very name of est -- playing on and often interpreted as the Latin word for "it is" (see for example http://www.skepdic.com/est.html ) and the oft-quoted est fatalism quote: "what is, is" (see for example http://books.google.com/books?id=Ih4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q=&f=false ) and Werner Erhard's ongoing romance with ontology as as science of "being" (see for example http://www.wernererhard.com/leadership.html ) we have est formulae of idealism such as one's "way of being" (compare http://www.api-network.com/altitude/pdf/1/3.pdf ), of assertion using the verb "to be": note the famous "you are assholes" quote (see http://books.google.com/books?id=rKToNkxZ_vkC&pg=PA253#v=onepage&q=&f=false ), of declaration of identity like "this is what we are", and most bizarrely "I am that ..." (est/Landmark-speak to indicate support for an idea). -- Given all that it seems appropriate to take care in using the verb "to be" in discussing est-like topics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedant17 (talk • contribs)

The subject of an article should not reflect the language we use to write it in. We do not write the E-Prime article in E-Prime, we do not write the Michael Spivak article using Spivak pronouns, we do not write the Charles de Gaulle article in French. We "follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable". --McGeddon (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The language of an article need not necessarily reflect the subject-matter of the article either. But it may do in some cases and in some respects. We could write the E-Prime article (or virtually any article - excluding quotes and examples) in E-Prime because E-Prime as a language comprises a sub-set of standard English -- a very large sub-set which can express almost anything in comprehensible standard English words and phrases. We do not write the [[Michael Spivak}} or Spivak pronoun articles using Spivak pronouns, because using such a language might involve a super-set of the English language, and we have a duty to write in comprehensible English on the English Wikipedia. We do not write the English-language Wikipedia article on Charles de Gaulle in French because we have a duty to write in English -- though one might imagine a need to introduce and explain/translate some technical Gallicisms in such a article. And here we may have a parallel with our article on Outrageous Betrayal. Given the special jargon of Erhard Seminars Training and its sometime idiosyncratic use of the verb "to be", it does indeed seem appropriate, as I suggested, 'to take care in using the verb "to be" in discussing est-like topics'. -- And we should certainly follow (where appropriate) the strictures of the Wikipedia guidelines in WP:TONE on following "the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable". But we also need to take into account the other recommendations of WP:TONE on (say) formality and news style, while subordinating all these considerations to the the requirements of Wikipedia policy as expressed (say) in WP:NPOV on balance and neutrality. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Three possibilities

I am a newcomer here so I do not know the history of this argument but it would seem to be that there are three possibilities concerning Pedant17's actions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

1 E-Prime fan

For some reason that only he knows Pedant17 is trying to get this article (and maybe others) written entirely in E-prime. This seems to be what many editors here are suggesting. Clearly, without a consensus, there should be no insistence that the article is written entirely in E-prime. My comment to Pedant17, if this were the case would be, 'Come clean and admit you are using E-prime, explain why you thing it is appropriate to this page, and try to get a consensus to use it. If you do not get a consensus to use E-prime throughout, you can expect your edits to be rapidly reverted'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2 E-Prime as guiding principle

Perhaps Pedant17 uses E-Prime as some kind of guiding principle is his writing, just like some people would prefer to avoid the passive voice and first person in some contexts. A degree of openness would help here.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

3 Just his natural style

Maybe Pedant17's natural style, in the context of writing an encyclopedia, is to write in a way that avoids use of the verb 'to be'. He may not even have been aware of the existence of E-Prime before this dispute. This seems to be the position that Pedant17 is claiming, from my brief look at the talk page.

If this is the case there is just a clash of writing styles between different editors, and they should work together to avoid this. Pedant17s edits should not be automatically reverted. Other editors should rewrite only the specific bits that they consider clumsy or difficult to understand. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Until proven otherwise (or if there is historical evidence to this effect) all editors should assume good faith and that option 3 above is the case, and act accordingly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is choice number 1. See also prior history at Talk:Dell, Talk:Alien (film), and this article's prior talk page archives. Pedant17 is the only editor who keeps attempting to push out E-Prime changes to this article. Cirt (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is as simple as a writing style. E-Prime doesn't just crop up when User:Pedant17 adds new sentences to articles or copyedits unrelated problems; he specifically edits the verb "to be" out of articles, even in sentences which are already clear, concise and accurate. He seems to see the words "is" and "was" as serious problems that need copyediting, and is making some sentences slightly clunkier as a result.

I think we're somewhere between 1 and 2 here, and would appreciate some feedback from the user in question. --McGeddon (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear Pedant17's view on the subject. An in-principle insistence on using E-Prime is not acceptable without a consensus to do so, but neither is a an in-principle insistence that it must not be used. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As Pedant17 has not commented on his motivation we can only judge him by his actions. Let us see how it goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated previously, I see advantages in E-Prime as just another tool for expressing encyclopedic text. Indeed, it can make what seems clear even clearer -- what seems balanced even more balanced. If it doesn't, other editors can appropriately point out how and when on each occasion, revising accordingly. -- We still haven't "edited out" (or even discussed) the "was" in " A review by Mary Carroll published in the American Library Association's Booklist noted that the controversy surrounding Erhard was not new" -- my copyediting seems less thoroughly single-minded than alleged in respect of thoroughness too ... -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is against pushing out usage of E-Prime for this article. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody should be pushing E-Prime in or out of this article. If you think another editor's style is bad then improve the bits that need it. An argument about style dogma is unproductive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What if one editor thinks that a sentence is preferable in E-Prime, while another thinks that it reads more clearly with the word "is" or "was"? Given that not every sentence can be cleanly copyedited into E-Prime, "copyedit style you perceive to be bad" could still be a back-and-forth stalemate (just at the sentence level, rather than the revert-entire-article level). --McGeddon (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should assume some good faith and give it a try. If there is stalemate over a sentence then discuss, and try to reach a consensus, with outside opinion if needed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

An earlier thread on this talk page is already at a stalemate over whether "is a biography written by Steven Pressman" is better than "a book written by Steven Pressman, presents a biography", and was cited as an example problem in this RFC. You've agreed that that particular sentence was bad style, and Pedant17's reaction is to suggest another similarly-phrased E-Prime version of the sentence. Pedant17 seems very reluctant to accept consensus on tone, insisting that editors must somehow "prove" that their wording flows better than his own, and dismissing tone concerns as "unsubstantiated opinions". We can try discuss-consensus-RFC on a per-sentence level, but I think we're already here and it's failing. --McGeddon (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We currently have, 'Outrageous Betrayal: The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile is a biography of Werner Erhard written by legal journalist Steven', which seems good to me. I suggest the issue should be one of tendentious editing, rather than adherence to or avoidance of a particular style. Editors should not insist on a form of wording against the consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If the style "seems good", we may have a good basis. But in this case, as I have tried to point out since at least July 8, 2009, we have a content-balance issue as well as any consideration of style. Parts of the book provide biography -- fine. Other parts relate to the origins and history and management and behavior of Erhard Seminars Training and of Werner Erhard and Associates and even of Landmark Education. The Library of Congress classifies Outrageous Betrayal not as a biography (which might use the Library of Congress class "CT"), but as a work on psychology or psychotherapy with the code "RC489.E7 P74 1993": see http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=outrageous+betrayal&Search_Code=GKEY%5E%2A&PID=dKrdcoBnlx9kKW3UYqHdns1qvAz&SEQ=20100228211015&CNT=100&HIST=1 . Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=k36QQgAACAAJ refers to "an account" and quotes a review's description of a "mud-slinging expose", then assigns a series of subject-categories: "Biography & Autobiography / General", "Erhard seminars training", "Erhard seminars training - History", "Erhard seminars training/ History", "Erhard, Werner - Trials, litigation, etc", "Psychology / General", "Self-Help / Personal Growth / General". The 1995 edition gets labeled even more interestingly: "Education / General", "Non-Classifiable", "Self-Help / Personal Growth / General" -- with no mention of biography (again)... A glance at the older edit-histories reminds us that a school of thought wants to label the work as "journalism" or "journalistic" See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=80785264&oldid=80784750 . (We got rid of the "muckraking journalism" tag as the sole/prime descriptor of the book...) Various reviewers quoted in the current article refer to "a biography", "an account of a guru", an "object lesson in the power of charisma divorced from conscience", a "critique", and even a "story" (warning: est-jargon alert!). The existence of such alternative labels suggests that "biography" on its own might not give a fair and accurate impression of our subject-matter. So we call in the principles of WP:NPOV and balance to help us, and I come up with the suggestion that we could say something along the lines of "a book which includes a biography" (and potentially includes other things, but avoids a single, misleading label or set of such labels) . Fighting over the mere style of our lede before we agree on the substantive content puts the cart before the horse and may smack of obsessionism. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to edit the article if you have substantive content to add to it; I completely agree that this is more important than disputing the tone of the content. I have added "The book is both a profile of Erhard and a study of his business practices." to the lede. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Full marks for boldness -- but that (un-discussed) edit marches straight into a subject-area dispute over the balance and accuracy of discussing Erhard as having something to with "business". One school of thought sanitizes his activities as "business", another as "businesses"; while others (including the author of Outrageous Betrayal) place as much or more emphasis on the social, psychological, psycho-therapeutic and religious aspects of various operations such as Erhard Seminars Training, [Werner Erhard and Associates]], Landmark Education, The Hunger Project, The Foundation for the Realization of Man, est, an educational foundation, The est Foundation, the Werner Erhard Foundation for est, the Werner Erhard Charitable Settlement, the Breakthrough Foundation, Transformational Technologies, the Centers Network, Rancord Company, Ltd., the Vanto Group, Inc, the CareGivers project, the Education Network, the Holiday project, the Mastery Foundation, the Werner Erhard Foundation, Prison Possibilities, Inc., and so forth. Compare the archives for Talk:Erhard Seminars Training. Highlighting "business practices" in the lede at the expense of other, arguably more important topics, simply asks for trouble and invites edit-warring. -- Pedant17 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the list is meant to convey, but feel free to edit the sentence if you feel that different topics should be highlighted. --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If style and tone exist, we can discuss them. But pontificating on betterness and badness and non-existent "consensus" does not a discussion make. And speculating on how other editors "seem" hardly helps. If we want to discuss style and tone, we need to do the analysis and come up with sound arguments. I don't know why Wikipedians often find this so difficult. Compare the analysis of two different editors in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOutrageous_Betrayal&action=historysubmit&diff=300226911&oldid=296106515 -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC) --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether a sentence is "clear and understandable" involves some degree of subjective interpretation. --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. We can discuss the other 90% and attempt to bracket out the subjectivity. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that "consensus is against pushing out usage of E-Prime" implies that we have a consensus without detailing where that consensus comes from or when we achieved it. I don't know that we've even negotiated a consensus about using "is" and "was" yet, let alone dealing with the E-Prime distraction. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus has been established that there is not support for these changes by Pedant17 which push out E-Prime, and remove "is" and "was" and other derivations of "to be", etc., seemingly for its own disruptive sake. See above in this RFC, and also prior RFC, where there was not support for these issues by Pedant17. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Martin Hogbin has commented that "Nobody should be pushing E-Prime in or out of this article", and I agree with that. Nobody should be making edits primarily to achieve the removal or insertion of the verb "to be". --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Who established the alleged consensus over lack of support for changes by User:Pedant17? and where? and when? Who established any consensus that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 "push out E-Prime" from the article? and where? and when? Who dreamed up the WP:OR that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 appear "seemingly [...] disruptive"? and where? and when? Who proposes an alleged consensus based negatively on the lack of "support for these issues" when some such issues received no or little discussion, let alone reasoned discussion, in one or more of the two RfCs on this article called on specific (and other) topics? Would some evidence - precise, verifiable and quotable evidence - prove more useful than unsupported (even though repeated) assertions? -- Pedant17 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of editors did. From two separate RFCs on the matter. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In which specific respects then do you disagree with my stated interpretations of the RfCs (one of them still on-going)? Unless you give specifics, assertions don't help. Not even repeated assertions help. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help move this forward by explicitly agreeing or disagreeing with the suggestion that "Nobody should be pushing E-Prime in or out of this article", Pedant17? --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I find the statement about "pushing" demeaning, woolly and statically oriented. I see no need to set out any rules just for this article. But as a general principle I stated on Feb 24, 2010, that we can assess each sentence on its merits: 'Surely we can optimize each sentence as appropriate, depending on its function and content, whether or not it happens "not to include certain words"'. As User:Martin Hogbin summarized later that same day: "If you think another editor's style is bad then improve the bits that need it. An argument about style dogma is unproductive." Do we have a consensus here? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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