Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 7

message: Anything that does not directly concern this article should not be on this page. Please discuss websites, etc, somewhere else. -Willmcw 21:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Perey/Bluejay disagreement

message: Looks like we have a new mediator, User:Andrevan.  Everyone who wants to give their side of the story to our new mediator, please do so. Michaelbluejay 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How did this happen?--Samivel 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not he place to discuss it, but briefly the previous mediator resigned due to his need to spend more time on non-Wikipedia matters. -Willmcw 21:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Very understandable.--Samivel 23:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation-o-rama 

message: I hope that you, Outerlimits and others, will revise the section on homosexuality in keeping with NPOV. I think it should be much shorter and the editorializations and inaccuracies should be removed.
Here are five of my critical comments on the content of that section. I hope you will respond with revisions of these sentences--revisions which are truly neutral in point of view:
1. Take this POV phrase: “His therapy was based on the notion…” -- "Therapy" is the wrong word. There is a difference between therapy (which is pointedly psychological) and philosophy, which concerns one’s attitude to reality as a whole. Further, to characterize a philosophy as a “notion” is inaccurate and demeaning. It’s like saying Newton’s theory of gravitation is based on the “notion” that the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between bodies. (The law of inverse squares is hardly a “notion.”) 
2. The following sentence is also untrue and should simply be deleted: “Such choices, once made, were enforced by community pressure to extinguish homosexual behavior, and by quickly marrying those who had so chosen....etc." This sentence is put in the passive voice, concealing an absence of facts, and consists of unsupported assertions. One must conclude that this is Outerlimits’ “original research” so to speak and that is not allowed in Wikipedia. There is no source for these unsupported accusations, which as a first hand observer, I know to be fiction.
 
3. Also, as to the following series of sentences, no source is given to support them: “A number of persons....say they did not, in fact, change.  Furthermore, a number of persons who said they had changed later decided they had not changed, after all.  As of this writing, it is impossible to know how many of the "changed" actually have exclusively heterosexual ideations and sex lives.” This is more "original research" by the writer and no source for it is ever given. Further, it is definitely POV. This is why: There are numerous individuals who changed from homosexuality and whose published accounts of this change are scientifically important (they aren’t “anecdotal” as Outerlimits says). Is it scientific for Outerlimits to imply that the persons who said they DID change were not truthful, while the persons who say they did NOT are the truthful ones? No it is not scientific: it is bias.
4. The following clause is more editorializing: “…and the Aesthetic Realism Foundation has become a willing suppressor of the "great truth" it once protested against the media for similarly suppressing.” – To paraphrase George Meredith in Urania: “ ‘tis eloquent, but ‘tis not NPOV.”
 
5. The following statement is also editorializing: “The Foundation will not enter into dialog about its position, instead falling back repeatedly on the following public statement of its position…”  This writing is geared to slant the opinion of the reader, to “spin” the facts, and not to inform in a neutral tone of a situation taking place at this moment. Has the public statement of the Foundation even appeared online more than once? Moreover, if the verbal attacks in these pages are a sample of the dialog to be expected, I don’t think anyone would find it particularly appealing. And of course the last sentence of the Foundation’s public statement—a rather important sentence--was omitted (unless it was just an oversight).--Samivel 17:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing some revisions as a beginning point for dialogue 

message: I gutted the "Victim of the press" section because it did not tell us anything about the campaign. -Willmcw 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victim of the press