Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 2

message: For those who want to see the history of discussion, click on the history tab. This page at 31kb was getting too long. There is enough controversy on it to call for a fresh beginning.
It is hoped that the writers who contribute to this page are true critics. As Constantin von Hoffmeister writes--in the words of Matthew Arnold a true critic's job as "to see the object as in itself it really is." 
--Aperey 20:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, we do not eliminate talk content and tell the reader to rummage through the history for it.  Standard practice is to archive it.  Standard practice in archiving is to leave currently active discussions in place on the main talk page, but in this instance I simply archived everything you had deleted, partly because there's really no bright line setting off what should be kept here on the main talk page. JamesMLane 22:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I don't mind the attack on my motives in the article.  I have no problem letting the other side air their complaints about their primary critic.  Since the section in question covers how AR deals with its critics, this is a primary source of how they do so, and thus I believe adds much value to the article.  So I'll add the attack on me back to the article.
If you really feel it's inappropriate for the article, let's talk about it.  I doubt you'd change my mind, but I'm willing to listen.  Michaelbluejay 03:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added back the attack on me 

message: In looking at the procedures to initiate mediation, I see that it is necessary that both editing parties wish it. I do wish mediation. I hope that Michael Bluejay also does. I am hereby submitting my request and will message mediators about it.  --66.114.86.135 21:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Mediation

message: First of all, I welcome outside help with this article, so it's not just a war between AR supporters and their most vocal critic (me).  I spent a lot of time reading the various methods of resolution on Wikipedia and I'm not sure which one(s) I should pursue.  I would welcome mediation but I'm not certain whether we're allowed to go to that point before trying other methods.  The documentation about resolution methods is verbose and I just spent a lot of time reading it and I'm having a hard time keeping it all in my head.
Oh, I see that another party has agreed to mediation.  Great, let's go for it.  I'm confident that third party help will result in a fair article.
:Actually it's not representative
:Since each AR supporter has his own view, and the particular supporter you quote says things that most others don't, I will remove it.
Whoa, wait a minute, here's why it's representative:  It's on the Aesthetic Realists' _Countering the Lies_ website!  They obviously feel it represents them well or they wouldn't have put it there.  If they don't feel it's representative they're free to take it down, but so long as they hold this up as a good example of countering their critics, then I think it should be treated as such.
Also, obviously not everybody has the same exact opinion.  That's not the point.  This is simply an _example_ of such an opinion (and I think it's a pretty good example).
:Nearly immortal?
:This is editorializing and is not supported by any AR text I've seen. Can the writer show a text?
Um, how about in the article itself? :) The quote therein says:
:"Eli Siegel, founder of the philosophy Aesthetic Realism, is, in my careful opinion and that of a growing number of people, the greatest human being ever to live. That means the person fairest to the world and most useful to it. This means the person kindest, most learned, most ethical, most imaginative, and most desirous of learning; the greatest fighter against ugliness in people, the greatest encourager of beauty; the person at once most unified and diverse, most serious and humorous, powerful and subtle, magnificent and democratic."
If that's not nearly immortal I don't know what is.
I think there was also another quote in the article about how _Self and World_ was supposedly greater than Shakespeare and the Bible, but if so then it's been edited out.  It's from one of their books, and it's on my website.  Finally, I published on my site the testimony of a former student who said, "While I was in AR, I did believe that Eli Siegel was greater than Christ...It would have been accurate to say I 'worshipped' him."
So I don't think this is 'editorializing', I think it's backed up by the facts.
Can't wait for the mediation. --Michael Bluejay
:My understanding is that mediation can be an appropriate first step.  In this particular instance, however, one alternative worth considering would be a Request for comment.  That's easy for me to say, though, because I'm not willing to do the work to set it up.  JamesMLane 07:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense of edits 

message: Anthere asked me to come by and see if everybody would agree to having me serve as a neutral mediator to help you come to a mutually-agreeable solution to your disagreement? I haven't thoroughly read over the talk pages or archives yet, so I'm not very familiar with the disagreement, but please feel free to contact me on my talk page or by email at clockworksoul AT optonline DOT net. – ClockworkSoul 05:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Yes, yes, please help us mediate!  I left a note on your Talk page.  Michaelbluejay 07:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Bluejay agrees to mediation 

message: In keeping with the way the controvery over John Kerry's military service was moved to a separate category--while there is a straightforward account of Kerry's life under his name--I have moved the whole "Criticisms / Objections" section to a new category, "Criticisms / Objections As to Aesthetic Realism." There, it can be dealt with a more length.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy
:The reason for creating the daughter article about John Kerry military service controversy was that there was so much detail about that point, but it was a minor aspect of Kerry's overall biography.  Including all the detail in the main John Kerry article would have been clutter.  Simply excising all the detail would lose information.  Therefore, we created a daughter article and left behind a short summary in the main article.  I don't think the AR article is in the same situation.  The article isn't unusually long; furthermore, in an article about a set of beliefs, the criticisms and objections are central, not peripheral the way the Swift Boat ads were peripheral to Kerry's career.  Presentation of the AR philosophy itself and of criticisms and objections could readily be accommodated in one article, if not for the problem of the constant POV editing. JamesMLane 21:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the matter of controversy to another entry

message: It is not right for Mr. Bluejay to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack a legitimate philosophy and the professional people who study and teach it--doctors, artists, persons in the social sciences, teachers, homemakers, and more. I hope that anyone who wants to deal with this situation reads carefully and is not in a hurry.
Mr. Bluejay's attacks (take a look at the history of this page) are far too numerous for me create a legitimate article and hope it stays put. I have written and rewritten, only to find the saboteur at work again. 
That is why mediation is necessary--at least to begin getting a just article.
I can rewrite till the end of time if need be to have the truth win out over obvious "bad-mouthing." 
Apparently Mr. Bluejay wants to use Wikipedia's terms in his attack, such as the above "This is SO RIDICULOUSLY POV;" and in doing this he is ever so transparent. In fact, he is promoting his own, obviously NOT NEUTRAL, point of view. 
Yes, as one Wikipedian wrote to me, everyone has the right to his opinion even if it is delusional. But no one has the right to suppress what another believes to be true, as Mr. Bluejay has tried to do to my writing.
He has censored me--unfortunately--and cried out that he was censored because I, hastily, deleted links that led to his libelous website. And later have tried to add paragraphs describing what I know to be true, often using legitimate and authoritiative sources. Further, I have tried to put what is unimportant in its proper place, and what is important and central in its place. But this is not allowed? 
There has been no dialogue--just Mr. Bluejay's and a few others' peremptory comments, deletions, and substitutions. Democratic? No. Authoritarian? Yes.
This should change. 
The "Big Lie" technique, in which you tell a lie so big that it intimidates people, and you tell it again and again, has been used in history. This is his technique and those who are sustaining lies about Aesthetic Realism.
Apparently Mr. Bluejay is afraid of mediation--writing "I've requested mediation but I don't know when that process will start"--and wants to do something else to preempt it. 
There should be a real dialogue. Mr. Bluejay wants a fait accompli with his own version in place--badly misrepresenting a real history, an important philosophy, and honest people who teach it.
So I have set some facts before you.
--Aperey 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedians, let us look at the facts

message: The first thing I want both of you Michaelbluejay and Aperey to do is thoroughly read our NPOV policy. Then I want you to both make sure, every time you write something on a discussion page, to sign and also use : at the begining to indent.  The more :'s you put, the greater the indentation. The best way to resolve disputes over article content is to back up your edits with sources.  You copy and paste the URL from the site and put [ ] around it, as opposed to   for internal wiki links. You need to discuss all this on the talk page before editing/reverting the article and reach a consensus. Making attacks on each other solves nothing.  You need to carefully explain your edits, using sources, and maintain NPOV in the article.  It is good to put the opinions from all sides in an article, as long as you point out that it is "their opinion", or "so and so has claimed." I don't personally know anything about this topic, so I can't help edit it, but hopefully my advice has helped. Do not break the 3 revert rule. If someone is a troll or a vandal then you can request to have them blocked, but it must be shown that they are.  Write to me on my talk page if you want more help. --Silversmith 17:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation from Silversmith 

message: I deleted the part that argued that people angry with the philosophy itself have attacked Aesthetic Realism--the argument sets up a straw man, and does not add to the understanding of Aesthetic Realism.
:*Please respect the mediation process and do not modify this article. Edits shouldn't be done without permission.
::Question: Are you sure you know enough about this history to say a "straw man" is involved? Please discuss this matter before going ahead with deletions or other modifications. It's only fair.
::Since you haven't signed your editing, but are anonymous, are you aware that this decreases your credibility? 
::Again, please respect the Wikipedia spirit, rules, and ethics. I am sure that a fair article will result if Wikilove is adhered to.  --Aperey 15:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing notes

message: If I removed it, it was my clumsiness. I have no intention of doing so. It is a low point in tabloid journalism--constructed to give a false impression while having the appearance of "objectivity" to the unwary reader. Some of its techniques are pointed out in "Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies." I have written a paragraph by paragraph analysis but haven't posted it yet. It is, however, transparent enough in its bias to be unpersuasive.
I do not expect to engage much in these discussions, but I will be watching.  --Aperey 15:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Response

message: *"Ended his life" is a euphemism for "killed himself" or "committed suicide". This is an encyclopedia; such euphemisms are inappropriate.
*"change from homosexuality" is a quote: it belongs in quotation marks, especially as it is an idiosyncratically AR way of talking about such things.  - Outerlimits 17:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: various issues

message: I added some documentation. There is more. 
The fact is the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is not a philosophy but a school--this makes things a little different from the common way of thinking about a philosophy. Knowledge is transmitted, including about anthropology (which I teach), poetry, acting, and other subjects which are part of the curriculum. The education process is not really included in the term "adherent." It sounds more like geting glued to something than assimilating knowledge from it. (I say this with adequate awareness of the common usage of the term "adherent," I hope.) -- 
Cheers, --Aperey 22:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Foundation is indeed an institution, not a philosophy.  As Outerlimits pointed out, though, Stanford is also an institution.  I assume that, at Stanford, a student can take classes about Marxism.  It would seem odd to call someone an adherent of Stanford, but perfectly normal to call someone an adherent of Marxism (or of libertarianism, or of Christianity, or of the theory of evolution).  "Adherent" seems to me to be a neutral word for someone who agrees with a particular point of view.  "Proponent" goes beyond that to connote active advocacy, "follower" might have an implication that the person didn't exercise critical judgment, and "supporter" is too weak because in some contexts it would include someone who didn't agree with the doctrine but who defended the right of other people to teach it. JamesMLane 23:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ============================