Talk:Maitreya Project/Archive 1

message: Dear Simmonstony, re Maitreya Project, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I appreciate the importance of this project to many people, never-the-less, the cause of this Noble project is not being served in Wikipedia by the lack of NPOV, if continued this would tend to lead to conflict over the editing of this page. Please bring a NPOV to this article, or allow others to add it.David Woodward 11:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I'm all for having a Criticism section in this article, but as it stands this section is too long and confusing.  I would suggest removing the unsourced para about FPMT affiliation, as it is not clear how this is criticism, and copyediting the rest, removing unnecessary info where possible. Maybe initially aim for two paras, one about criticism, and one dealing with Kedge's responses. Johnfos 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism suggestion and POV

message: Dear David Woodward. 
I have replaced the POV box for the article with a POV-section box for the criticism section. I feel this is more appropriate as the entire article is not in dispute, merely the criticism section.
I don't think anyone wants an edit war over this issue. I have reverted the 2 quotes mentioned to the original text. Regarding the removed reference to an old Maitreya Project entity in UK, this was removed as it was totally irrelevant (and also not a criticism). Maitreya Project have many legal entities worldwide and the closing of one of them was simply normal course of business, as is the case with any large organisation.
Regarding the quotes and references to Bodhgaya News, I have moved these entirely to the talk page, below, as they are in breach of Wikipedia policy regarding questionable source Wikipedia:Verifiability. 
The policy states that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." and further... "Self-published sources (online and paper)... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
The Bodhgaya News is a personal website which contains much misinformation and poorly researched articles. The article by Di Cousins is one example, being full of misinformation and misquotes. As such it should not be referenced according to Wikipedia policy.
The criticism section should thus be rewritten with reliable sources quoted. If you like, I am more than happy to work on this with you so that a neutral and factual criticism section can be developed. If you would like to contact me by email, or phone, please let me know and I will make my details available.
Please state in clear terms what exactly you wish to do to resolve any dispute.  
Simmonstony 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute resolution

message: Note: This section has been moved to the talk page pending dispute over the reliability of its sources. Simmonstony 21:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: On 31/10 I added a POV tag to the top of this article and this is what I said at the time:
:I'm adding a POV tag for now, as the Criticism section is too long and it dominates the whole article, and relevant responses  are not being presented. Johnfos 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding POV tag again

message: I completely disagree. Just because an article has no criticism does not mean the entire article is unbalanced or not from a NPOV. For this reason, we seem to have a problem because unless you can tell me what is unbalanced or not neutral in the text that does appear in the article, I will keep removing the POV tag. If you feel inclined, please explain in detail what text exactly you feel is not neutral. 
I agree that a criticism section may be warranted as there has been some criticism (though in the press, only from 3 individuals). This section, however, requires writing from a NPOV also. The lack of length of a criticism section does not put the rest of the article in question. That is plain logic.
If the neutrality of the text in the sections that appear in the article is not neutral in your opinion, please tell me why.
Cheers Simmonstony 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing POV tag again

message: Extra citations have been added, and thus I have removed the citation tag. If you stiff feel there are insufficient citations, please  tell me exactly what requires a citation. I have been over the Wikipedia policy on citations and as far as I can see, there are sufficient. So please, be specific if you feel there are more needed.. exactly where, and ill add them.
Cheers again Simmonstony 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any citations that are not from the Maitreya Project website or a related publication?—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I am adding the POV tag and "more citations needed" tag to the top of the article again. Before we deal with citation and POV issues, I would suggest that the  copyvio issues be dealt with.  Johnfos 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding POV tag again

message: I picked two paras at random and found that they appeared to be copyright violations.  This para...
:No fees are charged and the school provides uniforms, books, meals and health care. The school also provides residential accommodation for a small number of children who either need special care and attention or may not otherwise be able to attend school.
appeared to be a copyvio of this source:  This para...
:The Project will build a teaching hospital of international standard in Kushinagar as the focus of its healthcare activities. This will offer treatments based on Ayurvedic, Tibetan, and Western medical systems. The hospital will provide first-rate medical care in surgery and other modern procedures.
appeared to be a copyvio of this source:  The easiest way to deal with copyvio is to remove the offending text.  Johnfos 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: I'm also adding a "future infrastructure" tag at the top of the article, as it is easy to get the impression (eg., from the image and caption) that the statue has already been built. This tag will help to clarify things for readers. Johnfos 04:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future

message: Maitreya Project has given its full consent to use text verbatim from its website and materials on Wikipedia. I have added a note to this extent in the article.
I am removing the POV and Citation tags again and will continue to do so until you clarify
Best wishes Simmonstony 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: The copyvio issues appear to involve multiple sources, not just the Maitreya project site.  In any case much of the material that is coming from the Maitreya site seems overly promotional and not particularly suited to an encylopedia article.  This is partly why the article is POV and needs a POV tag.  The other reason is that reliable sources suggest that considerable criticism and questioning of the project has occurred but this has been cut from the article, and so the page is not neutral.  In terms of citations please see WP:When to cite.  I would suggest that a controversial article such as this requires at least one citation per paragraph, so I'm adding the "more citations needed" tag again. Please don't be concerned about these tags being there -- they alert other editors to the fact that there is a dispute here, so hopefully they can come and assist. Hope this helps... Johnfos 04:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: 1) There is no text which violates copyright. If there is, then please highlight exactly what it is.
2) Citations
Wikipedia policy states...
* Quotations – When quoting published material, the quote should be attributed in the text and a citation placed after it.
* Data and statistics – Data and statistics need sources.
* Counter-intuitive statements – Statements likely to surprise the reader should be cited.
* Opinions – Opinions should be cited and attributed in the text.
* Contentious statements about living people 
I believe that none of these apply, so I am removing the citations tag again.
3) POV
Yes, much information comes from the Maitreya Project website. As this is an article about the Maitreya Project, and the project is in planning stages, then there really is no other place to gain information about the project. Please let me know if I am wrong about this. If so, supply a reliable source and I will add content as applicable.
The project criticism stems around one issue, as far as I can see.. That the UP government is acquiring land and plans to lease it to the Maitreya Project.
Thus, this particular criticism is against the UP Government and not the Maitreya Project. One cannot print criticism of the Maitreya Project for actions taken by another entity.
The criticism that was previously present in the criticism section was not from a reliable source, and contained blatant misinformation and misquotes which have been refuted in writing by the person quoted. Thus they cannot be linked to from Wikipedia. 
Thus, again, I remove the POV tag until you are specific.
I will keep removing these tags, as long as you keep reinstating them. I would therefore request formal dispute resolution if you wish to continue like this.
Best wishes
Simmonstony 05:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it is best to seek some sort of dispute resolution, so please go ahead with this... Johnfos 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Resolution Requested

message: As some of you may know, there has been a mediation request filed. You can see it here. I will be the Medcab mediator. I hope that I will be able to help get this dispute over with ASAP. Cheers!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 14:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation