Talk:Gary Renard

message: Admittedly the central premise of Renard's book is highly controversial, however the book is proving to be extremely well received, and as such, I believe that Renard makes a good subject for a Wiki article.  As always, any editors who may have any further verifiable published documentation regarding Renard or his book are most welcome to edit further.
Scott P. 15:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
:The issue isn't that he's "admittedly controversial," but that he's nonexistent to mainstream sensibilities, in other words, not notable. Lucinda14 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renard is admittedly controversial 

message: I think it fell short of NPOV, and have edited it accordingly. Gene Ward Smith 22:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this article needs further editing 

message: This sentence is clearly factually wrong:
*Also, some readers have expressed qualms over the fact that some of what is presented in the book is currently unsupported by standard consensus scientific and historical notions....even though it is quite in keeping with Quantum Physics. 
I removed it on that basis. QM does not say that humans might have come from Mars, etc. Some other matters of opinion rather than fact were edited also. WP:NPOV needs to be followed here. Gene Ward Smith 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed some scientific nonsense

message: User Ste4k first attempted to delete this article using an unsuccessful Afd nomination.  Failing to generate support in the Afd, he then simply deleted the article himself, regardless of the Afd result to keep.  There was no discussion regarding the Afd or the actual article deletion on this talk page.  User Ste4k has since been permanently banned from Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior.  I have since reinstated the article.  Scott P. (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstated article, after now banned user deleted article without consensus 

message: He is not a notable author outside of A Course in Miracles circles, which is a very narrow circle of people cloistered around the Unity subculture. This article therefore serves only as promotion. No claim to notability is made. Lucinda14 (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion proposal

message: I've listed this page for a deletion nomination. No claim to notability is made. The only claim made is that he is devoted to teaching the principles of A Course in Miracles, but that in itself doesn't qualify as notability, because ACIM has sold around two million copies and many people have written books on it and are dedicated to teaching its principles. Does every ACIM teacher/author deserve a wiki? In my opinion, the only two ACIM figures who truly deserve Wikis are Helen Schucman (the author of "A Course in Miracles"), and Marianne Williamson who authored a book about ACIM (A Return to Love) which was an "Oprah pick" and has sold over 2 million copies! Renard can make no such claim to notability. Lucinda14 (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion nomination

message: This page was created by a student of A Course in Miracles and Gary Renard, and it is being maintained by said student (as well as other ACIM students). This is therefore a conflict of interest. I have reverted the maintenance tags which an ACIM student removed. This page serves only for advertisement for a product. The only reason the most recent deletion nomination failed is because two ACIM students voted to keep the page, and the discussion was quickly closed thereafter (by a non-administrator). Lucinda14 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the above were true, and I see no irrefutable proof that it is, this is not in any way conflict of interest. If it were, nearly every article on Wikipedia would be a conflict of interest, as articles are created by people who have in some way heard of or read about the subject matter. What is irrefutable is that all of your 50+ edits have been solely to attempt to delete this article, and when that failed, to deprecate or disrupt it. I have posted a formal warning to you about this on your Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this page was started by Scottperry  who admits on his own user page that he is a student of "A Course in Miracles" . This is a conflict of interest. If you look at his edit history, you will see that he created many ACIM-related articles, thinking that many obscure aspects of the movement deserved pages. Most recently, he created this page about ACIM-based books, a page whose notability is also being questioned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_works_based_on_A_Course_in_Miracles It is not a personal attack to note that the fact that Scottperry is a student of ACIM has created a conflict of interest that makes him think things about ACIM are notable when they are actually only important to the small community of "students." There are only two books on his list that are notable, A Return to Love and A Course in Miracles itself. Both books have pages already, so the list is not necessary; but due to the fact that he's an ACIM student he is apparently unable to realize how entirely obscure the other books are to the general reader. Lucinda14 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is having a close personal relationship with the subject of an article, or an employment relationship with the subject of an article. You are brand new to Wikipedia and do not know or understand its policies and guidelines. Continuing to insist that an article was written with a conflict of interest when it obviously was not, and continuing to attempt to delete, disrupt, and deprecate one article and/or its creator, constitute highly disruptive Wikipedia:Single-purpose account editing and is subject to either a topic ban or a site-wide block or ban. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and as I have mentioned on your Talk page, if you persist in this direction of disruptive and POV editing, including persisting in irrelevant attacks and accusations on this Talk page, you will be reported to WP:ANI. I strongly urge you to desist in this approach, as your agenda clearly prevents you from editing productively on this subject. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who is engaging in harassment and intimidation and disruption. You removed many tags from this page (tags by other editors) without explanation or regard for the contribution of others.  Everything I've written has been written by others -- that this is "conflict of interest" and "not notable." I have not engaged in any "personal attacks." It is hardly an attack to note the truth: this page was created by an ACIM student, and others have questioned the notability of the pages he's created. Many ACIM-related pages (such as Robert Thompson Perry) have just been redirected to the ACIM page. You are the one who is engaging in attack by misrepresenting my contributions. My contributions have not been disruptive, as another editor deleted the page about The Disappearance of the Universe  based on my "speedy deletion" nomination regarding the fact that that page only served as advertisement. My contributions have been acknowledged as constrictive by everyone but you and Scottperry … which brings me back to the issue of conflict of interest. Lucinda14 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be sure to indent your Talk pages posts with colons; I have done that for your post above. My removal of the tags that you noted above  is clearly explained in the edit summary: they were redundant. There were two refimprove tags, I removed one; the article has already passed two AfDs, therefore notability has already been established. Unless you can prove that the creator of the article has either a close personal relationship with Gary Renard (i.e., is a relative or close friend), or an employment relationship with Gary Renard, there is no conflict of interest. The fact that you admit to getting the article on Gary Renard's book The Disappearance of the Universe deleted via a speedy deletion tag (an edit which does not show up on your edit history because of the deletion) further proves that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but are here solely to delete, disrupt, and deprecate anything to do with Gary Renard. Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Interesting that you single-handedly decided that the tags were redundant and so you removed them  (one tag, placed by someone other than myself, even noted a conflict of interest in this page ), and yet you don't see yourself as being disruptive. The fact that this page "passed" two deletion requests does NOT prove notability. The first deletion nomination was withdrawn, and the second one was only allowed to remain until it got three voters -- one from the man who created this page (a no-brainer that he'd want to keep this page) and is a student of ACIM, and the second from YOU (whom I suspect is also an ACIM student). And TheRedPenOfDoom noted on the second nomination that notability for the topic has NOT been established because the only "news" one can find about this topic are press releases . (You even claimed on the second nomination page -- before the deletion discussion was over -- that this page was notable because it had already passed a previous deletion nomination. The discussion wasn't even over yet at that point. Some pages go through two or three or more deletion nominations before finally being deleted.) As for the page about The Disappearance of the Universe being deleted, what that means is that RENARD IS NOT NOTABLE. The only claim to fame he had was that particular book (and its only claim to fame was that it went to #2 on Amazon.com due to Hayhouse "bundling" it with other items, a marketing ploy in itself), which was deemed so un-notable that it was speedily-deleted. Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean one has to be an employee of a given organization, etc. It means one has to have a close tie to the content of the article, which this page creator has admitted he does because he is an ACIM student, and most likely therefore a student of Renard as well. THAT is conflict of interest. Lucinda14 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest

message: If we can find third party (seconday sources) which discuss this author and his works, interesting information that could be provided:
*Spiritual current/tradition/influences (theosophy, etc)?
*Following/attendence at courses
*Music related works
*Book sales figures
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 18:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information that would be interesting 

message: Please avoid wholesale removal of text. Tag the material as uncited if needed, but please do not remove huge relevant chunks of text, especially when an AfD is in progress. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:ONUS. And do not restore unreferenced text to a WP:BLP. Thanks. jps (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text 

message: I have reverted a redirect to a page that barely mentioned the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus was to merge it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: *An AfD closing to merge is not binding, and we aren't discussing a merge anyway.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: This was the outcome of the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard (4th nomination).  If you want to contest that close, you must follow the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: *Ohhh, bold and imperative language from someone talking as a beginner and engaging in edit warring.  No, that was an AfD, and merge and redirect outcomes from AfD are not binding, and not generally actionable at DRV.  The problem right now is that you are engaged in edit warring.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out where policy says they are less binding then any other AFD result?Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also can you withdraw the accusation of Edit warring, the user has only made 1 revert.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you ever use WP:BRD?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That says nothing about AFD's. BRD does not trump or replace policy.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check policy, you will find that any one edit can be edit warring.  Why are you associating yourself with a refusal to follow WP:BRD?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So then, no, there is no policy that says that AFD's are not binding.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

text: You are wasting your time writing here.  If you want you can follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE instead of Wikipedia:Deletion review.  The underlying thing here is that the redirect was the result of a community discussion, and you cannot overturn that yourself. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Time wasting theories aside, if discussion results are not binding, bold edits have standing.  The result was not "redirect", the result was "merge", with secondary text stating "redirect and merge".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So then you should have merged it, not reinstated it. And again please link to the policy that says that AFD discussions are not binding.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've previously responded to your question, and in the RfC I've quoted from WP:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it's policy, strictly speaking Unscintillating is not wrong about the underlying principle.  At Deletion Review, we have sometimes said that a "keep" or "no consensus" can morph into a "merge" or "redirect" based on a talk page consensus afterwards.  Deletion Review has sometimes taken the view that if the outcome was some flavour of "not-delete" then another flavour of "not-delete" can be substituted ---- and that's a good rule, by and large.  AfD is a big blunt instrument and talk page discussion can be more subtle and nuanced.  I think it's established custom and practice that Unscintillating can do this.  I think that after that particular discussion, doing this is really poor editorial judgment, but in my experience Unscintillating isn't a conflict-averse editor and I think he is unlikely to stop doing this until we reach a formal consensus that he shouldn't. I think the minimum-drama way forward will be to have the conversation rather than trying to shut it down.—S Marshall T/C 21:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree about him not being wrong, as he said it was policy, and not sometimes the result of other discussion (which we have not had yet anyway, the the appropriate place, which is what he is being told). Also this is not about changing something to merge, but his opposition to the idea of a redirect as well.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But you also avoid supporting what I've quoted from WP:Deletion policy, which is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow; and you avoid discussing your experience with BRD even though this has been a discussion that has a core element in BRD.  See also argumentum ad populum.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the subject of this article, thus anything about me is irrelevant. Yes I have failed to support your misaplication of policy. This is not a content dispute, it is a deletion dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, deletion in this context means the use of admin tools.  There is a grey area here involving the protection, but except for the aspect of the protection, there has been no deletion here, so no admin tools are needed, so no admins are required, so no forums run by administrators are required.  And the forum for content discussions is the talk page, as previously stated and as also stated in WP:Consensus.  One of the editors noted that merge discussions should not proceed without notifying the editors at the target, and since this didn't happen, this is something else to consider.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I am sorry but again you seem to be playing wiki lawyer. Where are you getting these ideas about "admin tools"? The consensus reached at AFD was deletion, redirect and protection. Can you please drop the stick. This is not a content discussion, this is an article deletion discussion and trying to find back door ways to keep it is not going to work. As to notifying the targets, please provide a link to policy on that (and do not say "content dispute", there is an obvious answer to that,  please think about it).Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article redirected to improper target 

message: The recent 4th AfD failed to reach a decision to delete.  Some editors didn't give the discussion credibility as it was started on the heels of the previous AfD, ignoring the advice provided at the DRV (in which I was a participant) to wait two months before renominating.  There is also a dispute from the 4th AfD closing as to whether the outcome was "Merge", or "Redirect with option to merge".  The closing also noted an influx of outsiders, but deletion specialists are not content experts on all topics in the encyclopedia, so this is not generally a good thing.  Whether the result was merge or redirect, AfD content decisions are not binding, as this is a decision left to the content contributors, or more specifically a decision made on the talk page of the article.  As per WP:Deletion policy, "content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page".  Now let me clarify that there are admins who allow themselves to be bound into subsequent content disputes after an AfD, so this leads to some lack of clarity and an occasional trip to DRV with a content dispute, but the alternative would be that AfD could always bind admins into subsequent content disputes, which isn't going to happen.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a link to the policy that says AFD's are not binding?Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: *Have you talked to the closing admin?  He can close this.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: If you believe that User:Alex Shih's close was invalid because they were WP:INVOLVED that is the kind of thing to bring at one of the two processes to challenge the close.  This is not appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: *What is inappropriate is stating at ANI that the result of the 4th Afd was "redirect".  The result was "Merge", with secondary text stating "redirect and merge".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just unhatted what you hatted.  Hardly "changes the meaning" but the dramah-mongering is clear. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should Gary Renard be merged 

message: The recent 4th AfD failed to reach a decision to delete.  Some editors didn't give the discussion credibility as it was started on the heels of the previous AfD, ignoring the advice provided at the DRV (in which I was a participant) to wait two months before renominating.  The closing also noted an influx of outsiders, but deletion specialists are not content experts on all topics in the encyclopedia, so this is not generally a good thing.  As per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, "content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please not again, take it to DRV. As to content, editors who do not know the subject bring one valuable asset to an AFD, they will try and find sources unaffected by re-conceived notions. Maybe that is why they all (pretty much) failed to find any notability, they looked and could not. This is not a content dispute, please stop wikilawering.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Should Gary Renard be redirected, protected, and merged? 

message: A review of the policy WP:Edit warring reveals that it echoes the previously cited WP:Deletion policy and the policy WP:Consensus, that the talk page is the place for discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process for consensus building on Wikipedia 

message: Regardless of the above (I was uninvolved), this redirect is current without Rcats. I propose the following:

 is perfectly substituteable with R from history in this case.
And a  should also be added. Thanks menaechmi (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Alex ShihTalk 00:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 21 August 2017