Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 6

message: So much abusive language, and so much reverting and re-editing has been used against two editors, myself and TS, that it has become impossible to edit this article fairly. 
There is no dialog, there is no agreement. Instead, several other editors (Outerlimits, Jonathunder, Marinero, CDThieme, and Michaelbluejay) have imposed a false and misleading point of view and put aside the views of others regardless of how many times these views were expressed, documented, sourced.
In fact one can see a definite smear agenda behind their edits--not a legitimate point of view at all. One of the revealing characteristics is that they see no value in any view but their own and claim absolute truth for it.
Therefore I am calling for this article to be frozen at the July 12th date, 16:29, 12 July 2005. This is when the only agreed-on version was posted. It was at that point unfrozen by Thryduulf. 
And following that, I call for mediation: a civilized dialog between the contending parties for the purpose of finding out the truth and getting it into the Wikipedia article.
For: Regardless of the truth, regardless of the points of view of others, these several individuals or aliases have imposed their notion and attacked anyone who disagreed. Their attacks can be seen in the Talk pages (unless, of course, there is a way of deleting permanently and selectively and they have used it).
You will note that, as is standard procedure in such attacks, the aggressors justify themselves by crying out that they have been attacked, censored, etc. 
However, the Talk archives will show what actually has happened. They will show the extensive reasoning and documentation which I an a few others have posted and which it has been in the interest of the attackers to ignore or to smear--as if by putting a contemptuous label on something that is true they have made it false.
The two most attacked sections at this time are: 
1. The introduction, beginning "Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel..."
2. And the section titled "===Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality==="
However, the attempt to smear can be seen elsewhere.
The website "The Crazy World of Michael Bluejay" <http:michaelbluejay.com> has a collection of misrepresentations from sources with their own agendas--many of them anonymous--and is a focal point for the persons whose "editing" I regard as, essentially, vandalism.
--Aperey 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:requests for mediation. Requests go there. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "One of the revealing characteristics is that they see no value in any view but their own and claim absolute truth for it." That's funny, that's exactly how I feel about you and your fellow cult members, Aperey.  "You will note that, as is standard procedure in such attacks, the aggressors justify themselves by crying out that they have been attacked, censored, etc." That's funny, that's exactly what you're doing in this rant of yours, Aperey. Marinero 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Aperey, as mentioned before, mischaracterizing a conflict over content as vandalism won't aid you in any way. You have previously been given links for wikipedia:vandalism  and for wikipedia:NPOV: it's not clear from your current posting that you've read them. Unrelenting ad hominem attacks don't help your case either. This article has already led to one "mediation" in which you participated (though you failed to adhere to the ground rules stipulated thereby); it doesn't need more. Mediation is not a means of getting an article locked onto a version you prefer, nor is it a court of appeals that will obviate your need to adhere to the NPOV policy.  You seek a version of the article in which no criticism of Aesthetic Realism is brooked, but such a version is unacceptable in Wikipedia, and I do not think you will find any mediator willing to cooperate with you in producing such an article.  - Outerlimits 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for Mediation by Arnold Perey 

message: I deleted the last sentence "William Carlos Williams, writing decades earlier, spoke of "the extreme resentment that a fixed, sclerotic mind feels confronting this new"" because it does not pertain to (chronologically) to the cult allegations.  It does not appear to relate in anyway to the paragraph. Brazos 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Section 

message: Deleted "or "belittlers," as James H. Bready calls them in the Baltimore Evening Sun" now reads "Critics contend that Aesthetic Realism's claim of a press boycott was a paranoid feeling of persecution".  I did this because the link in question was already mentioned and calling critics belittlers is snide and adds nothing to the sentence. Brazos 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims of the Press Section 

message: An editor recently added this:
*Since the 1990s Aesthetic Realism has come to prominence for its value in diverse fields, including the arts.  
In what way has it become prominent? -Willmcw 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominence 

message: Added the last two sentences to the section below (first paragraph of article).  The AR cult members do NOT get to describe the motivation of the detractors without allowing the detractors to state in their own words what motivates them.  The primary motivation is not a disagreement with the philosophy itself, but the cult-like behavior of the AR leadership and its "students."  
"Meanwhile some former students, and others, contend that Aesthetic Realism is a cult. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation points out that new thought has historically been met with insults, including the  poetry of Keats and the evolutionary theory of Darwin.  On the other hand, many of those who believe Aesthetic Realism is a cult really have no major quarrels with the philosophy itself.  Their contention stems from what they percieve to be the slavish devotion to Siegel of its adherents and the tight control exercised over them by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation." Marinero 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that ACT-UP protested AR. Such protesting was probably sparked by something, possible AR AIDS demonstrations. I believe they were known for conducting "victim of the press" protests, so AIDS demonstations would fit in with that. Yes, the NYT might have covered them, or the Village Voice. It'd be interesting to get more information about the AR protests, whatever their subject.  -Willmcw 09:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Outerlimits, regarding your additions about the gay cure in the intro -- I think there was already too much detail in the intro about AR's gay cure and now there's even more.  Why not just mention it briefly, and then provide the detail further down in the "AR and Homosexuality" section?  Right now the intro seems like it's trying to be the article, rather than a summary.  I'd change it myself, but I'm trying to take a hands-off approach to the article itself, at least for now. What do you think?  Michaelbluejay 09:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To echo the point, the intro is getting too long. A sentence on each concept should be enough. -Willmcw 09:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Outerlimits's last sentence in the intro is fine, as it is in keeping with the historical nature of the intro and sums up where the AR Foundation is today.  The cult allegations are also fine, because they alert the reader that all is not sweetness and light here, and there will be more to follow later in the article.  What is NOT fine is the ARists' attempt to argue the point right there in the intro.  I think it is obvious that they don't think AR is a cult; no need to state it.  However, since they insist on doing so, and since they do so by deliberately mischaracterizing the detractors' point of view, I felt it had to be countered.  Frankly, THAT is what is making the intro too long.  But I will not remove my answer to their argument as long as their argument remains a part of the intro. Marinero 13:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  I believe there is a reasonable balance in the present version. I probably could find a way to move that information to a later point in the article if the proponents of AR could find a way to shorten the paragraphs which precede it. They, however, seem primarily interesting in taking the information out of the article no matter where it is placed, and that is not acceptable.  - Outerlimits 22:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 10/4/05 

message: I don't see the note, so I'll respond to the edit summary: "documentation" is far more POV, than claim, in that it asserts the truth of the statement. No one was objecting to documents: the objection was to the idea. I've substituted idea; another alternative would be assertion. - Outerlimits 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was writing the note when your reply came in on top of it. So I took out my comment about the world "claim" and wrote a few more things in the note below. Thanks! --Samivel 20:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim