Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rick Norwood

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
Rick Norwood is consistently adding POV to the Conservatism article even after being given appropriate warnings and evidence to stop his activity.

Description
Rick Norwood is filling the Conservatism article with his own POV, adding entirely new sections, which, while referenced, are nothing more than a point-of-view soapbox to promote his views. He has openly stated an agenda and has ignored all requests to cease his activity.

He has stated:

Beneaththelandslide's talk page:
 * "Conservatism, as the article reflects, means different things to different people. One strong strain of conservatism is the preservation of a state religion, a landed upper class, and a hereditary aristocracy."

Conservatism's talk page: "I was taught as a child that Was it just the conservatives at the country club my grandparents were members of? I don't think so. Consider how many conservatives still belong to country clubs that are "white only" (and Jews and Hispanics are not considered "white" in this context). Consider that FDR, the founder of modern American liberalism, was called "a traitor to his class". And recently on a chat room, I was informed that liberalism is "low class". What did conservatives call Bill Clinton? They called him "trailer trash". He wasn't "one of us". Read Buckley's "God and Man at Yale". The roots of conservatism in preserving the class system run deep, and it does no good to say that that is not what you mean by conservativism. I believe you. But it is what a lot of very rich Republicans mean by conservatism."

"I have no axe to grind. I'm one of those weird souls who think there is such a thing as the truth, and I follow wherever it leads. When someone demonstrates that I'm wrong, I rejoice, because I learn something new."

"Historically, conservatives have supported the existing class structure against egalitarianism, the existing religion against other religions and atheism, patriotism against internationalism, and conformity against non-conformity, and so the poor, religious minorities, internationalists, and non-conformists have often spoken out against conservatism."

"Right now, I'm flying my liberal flag, primarily because of conservative distortions about science and history."

michael talk 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rick Norwood violates both NOR and POV standards in his contributions to the Conservatism Criticism section. Specific to original research in the section he included the following, "For example, a conservative bumper sticker reads..."  The reference has since been removed, but it required effort: Conservatism's talk page


 * What remains that I object to are the following leading sentences: "Conservatives often invoke religion and patriotism in support of their views. For example..." and, "Critics of conservatism claim that conservative cliams of piety and patriotism are often used hypocritically to sway the masses.", and "Many a populist politician in modern times has stirred the voters to a patriotic or religious fervor and then acted only to benefit himself and his cronies."


 * These three sentences say the same thing, "religion and patriotism". Rick attempts to prove these claims with two cherry-picked quotes.


 * His contribution is original research, and has POV problems. It isn't encyclopedic and shouldn't be included. Scribner 01:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * - consistent addition of this section, along with various other sections of the article that wholly violate NPOV policy
 * - specific to the paragraph beginning: "Conservatives often invoke..."

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:OR
 * WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * conservatism talk page discussion
 * rick's talk page discussion
 * conservatism talk page discussion

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * michael talk 14:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Scribner 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ER MD 15:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Rebecca 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * MadDogCrog 12:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

What Michael describes as constantly adding a section I would describe as him constantly deleting a section. I have tried to discuss this with him, as the quotes he posts above show. I have tried my best to work with Michael. I reword the disputed section, trying to work toward more neutral wording. He deletes. I leave out parts in an attempt a compromise. He deletes. I add footnotes and, if one footnote is weak, I provide a stronger footnote. He deletes. I try to discuss the subject with him. He repeats that I'm POV and OR and deletes.

I think Michael is sincere in his beliefs, but I think he needs to read more on the history of conservativism.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As I understand the statement above, I sign here rather than after the statement I have just written. Rick Norwood 15:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

I agree. Rick has just reverted wholesale my contributions to the Philosophy page, including two factual corrections - historically Western philososophy is NOT completely seperate from religion and Eastern philosophy DID influence Pythagoras. He added a foolsih and poorly written version of his own instead. He indicated he did not understand the nature of academic research, by rejecting 'books' as sources.

It seems there that he has made many time-wasting edits to the page and the talk pages, and diverted a lot of editors' energy in the past to little effect. He indicated limited awareness of the evident gaps in his expertise... Docmartincohen (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.