Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence

message: I am a Classicist. I am trying to write articles for :Category:Classical studies.  
The Classical meaning of words is very different from modern words.  We live in an era where everything is "political".  Words are used as political rudders, the meaning of words is changing. My whole outlook is to preserve Classical Antiquity and its meanings and language and culture.
I am trying to get an external link to the article [Republic] and I am having a devil of a time at Talk:Republic.  I have been doing a lot of reading and new information I receive makes it more certain that the [Classical definition of republic] be revived.  I have a ton of evidence that needs to be re-considered.  I have tried to put it back up on VFUD but User:Snowspinner has deleted it.  I stopped.  I don't know why my re-request was deleted.  I think it needs some serious study.  But I am engaged in talking and trying to find a compromise.WHEELER 15:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Wheeler

message: From what interaction I've had with WHEELER (Who I'll call W throughout the rest of this note), he strikes me as someone who is difficult to deal with and sometimes disruptive in that sense, but not someone who is disruptive in the greater sense of contravening policy in any significant way. It is true that his focus on classics, and his attempt to ensure the primacy of classical thought on Wikipedia is something that causes disagreement with a lot of other editors (including me). However, I don't think this falls within the bounds of POV pushing as it instead seems to be part of legitimate discussion on proper use of terms in articles. Arbitration has been used against people who have kind of similar issues (Chuck F, for example), but in those cases, I think judgement was made against them because they both were more clearly pushing a POV and their breaking the rules of the community in a clear way (evading bans). W may eventually step over that line, but at least given the evidence I have seen, he has not yet. I recommend this be taken again to mediation -- the goal of arbitration should not be to beat down people until everyone can edit harmoniously (as important as that is), but rather to deal with cases where people have stepped way over the line. If W has done that, then more evidence to that effect would be a good thing. --Improv 16:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartilly agree. W is not a policy breaker, he is a content producer. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that while I don't think that W is doing anything that should be arbitrated against, this does *not* mean that I think he's easy to deal with, nor that his attitude and expression of that attitude are as productive as they should be on Wikipedia. He does, as you note, produce good content. However, at least as far as I have seen, that good content is paired with a bad attitude and a tendency to scream. It would be a very good thing if he were to understand that when dealing with other people, we're sometimes wrong, we don't always get our way, and we need to be able to accept it when we don't get our way and move on. Further, he needs to keep in mind that screaming convinces (almost) noone, and is bad both for the screamed at and the screamer. In summary, I think W has great potential as a good contributor, and has in fact provided good content, but he's a pain to deal with right now, although not in such a way that I think he's stepped enough outside the line as to be punished. Note that this addendum is mainly to clarify my initial comment, which is partly in agreement with Sam Spade's summary/agreement, but is considerably more nuanced than simple support of W. --Improv 16:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amicus Curae from [[User:Improv|Improv]] 

message: Wheeler, It's not our job to care about cultural transformations. We're here to encyclopedically cover topics, which primarily means covering them in their current usage. Languages evolve. That may be unfortunate from some perspectives, but it's a fact of life. It's probably a good idea to cover in some fashion what a lot of these terms used to mean, in an appropriate location and type. It is a bad idea to "set anchor" with ancient meanings of things and have our encyclopedia be a guide to seeing the world through a time machine. I appreciate though that your tone is more mild in this note, with no yelling. --Improv 16:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.  "One mans trash is another mans treasure".  I have an agenda, but nobody else does.  I am the one forcing an agenda, and nobody else is pure as the white driven snow.  Or is it really, "The kettle calling the pot black"?WHEELER 14:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Response.  How can a word in the classical world, that had NO sexual meaning then be redifened in the modern world as sodomite? or having to do with gender roles?  "Gender roles" is a modern construct of marxist/modernist/feminist studies ideology.  Then, we take this Marxist/modernist/feminist studies ideology and place it back 2300 years ago and change the meaning of the word?  The page effeminacy is original research according to the rules of Wikipedia itself.  It proposes a NEW definition of a classical word that is not in the OED.  In all actuality, according to Wikipedian policy on original research, the modern definition of effeminacy needs to be put up for deletion!WHEELER 14:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to WHEELER's evidence (comment moved from evidence page) and Other Replies to evidence

message: Mr. Improv thinks that "cultural transformation" is of no importance to encyclopaedia's.  Are we not in a Cultural War now?!?!?  The only answer is Yes.  Knowledge HAS become political.  Socrates and Plato recognized this a long time ago.  Knowledge and words are manipulated.  That is the unmitigated truth.  What impact does this have on Wikipedia?  A very big impact.  Yet, we all want to run and hide from this fact or just slander Wheeler with being a NPOV and a nonconformist.
Here is the complete reference to Machiavelli:
:"He who desires or wishes to reform the condition of a city and wishes that it be accepted and that it be able to maintain itself to everyone's satisfaction is forced to retain at least the shadow of ancient modes so that it might seem to the people that order has not changed—though, in fact, the new orders are completely alien to those of the past.  For the universality of men feed as much on appearance as on reality: indeed, in many cases, they are moved more by the things which seem than by those which are....And this much should be observed by all who wish to eliminate an ancient way of life (un antico vivere) in a city and reduce it to a new and free way of life (ridurla a uno vivere nuovo e libero): one ought, since new things alter the minds of men, tosee to it that these alterations retain as much as the ancient as possible; and if the magistrates change from those of old in number, authority, and term of office, they ought at least retain the name. Niccolò Machiavelli
And yet, we want to refuse this methodology exists and then only clamor for "new" and "modern" definitions of terms.  Contrary to Snowspinner, Improv and the majority of editors on Wikipedia, there is ongoing cultural transformation and it does affect knowledge and it is political.  That is what is behind Antonio Gramsci's theory of Radical Social Change.  On my user page I do tell that I am a reactionary.  I am DWEM.  My POV is the POV of the Christian Classical World.  That our definitions and words are not to be allowed on Wikipedia—then, it is not "Free and Open" content.WHEELER 15:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree with you most heartedly. After all the evidence, your stance is "It simply doesn't matter." does not wash.  This needs to be considered on Wikipedia and by the all the sysops and admins.  It does matter. This needs to be talked about because this is the core of the dispute between me and others.  This is one major element. Knowledge is a cultural battlefield.  Why the disputes, everything would be peaceful then?  In the end, What impact does "Cultural transformation" have on knowledge?  It does matter extremely, i.e. effeminacy and classical definition of effeminacy need to be kept seperate, don't you agree?WHEELER 15:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that every editor on Wikipedia gets training in classics or agrees to defer to people who are so trained? That in order to preserve a classics and christian focus for meanings of words, we vigourously keep current meaning of terms out? I don't think that's going to ever happen here. Apart from special-purpose encyclopediae, nobody else is doing that either. If you consider the preference for covering modern meanings, with additional coverage of ancient conceptions of concepts to be selling out, then fine, we're selling out. We're not trying to pretend history doesn't exist, it's just doesn't have primacy. --Improv 17:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't attempt to change the effeminacy article to conform to classical meaning.  The classical definition of effeminacy lasted from Classical Antiquity to about 1970.  The word had the same meaning for 2300 years!  So we now must conform to a "*new*" meaning made up for it in the last thirty years?  As is stated above, Machiavelli planned to change the meaning of the word republic while retaining the word.  This change wasn't readily accomplished until the French Revolution.  So the 2000 year old meaning of the ancients, classics and medieval and Early American period is to be wiped out for a "*new*" meaning created in the last 300 years?  No Way. I can turn the tables on you, you are trying to turn this into an encyclopaedia that only accepts only "current usage" terms".  And is there such a thing as a "special-purpose" encyclopaedia?  Or did you just make that up?  That is not why Jimmy Wales started  this project.  It was for "ALL" knowledge.  I take that to mean Old terms and old words.WHEELER 22:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence points that the :Category:Classical studies needs special rules and special attention.  It is not like other fields.  No one studies the Classics anymore.  No one reads Werner Jaeger and Edith Hamilton.  The computer pages on Wikipedia don't engender as much abuse as the Classics because computers and software are not politically charged.  The Classics are a dangerous topic for modern socialist society, ideologues and cultural transformationists such as Fabians.  The pages I write are "dangerous" to the sanitized BS that passes for education in the modern schools, colleges and universities of today.  They are subversive to today's prevailing orthodoxy. Maybe this is the reason for the trouble I am in?WHEELER 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: It all comes from being an encyclopedia. --Improv 17:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of encyclopaedia?  A Professional one?  A sub-standard one? A peoples' encyclopaedia?  On what basis Mr. Improv did we come up with "covering them in their current usage"?  Is this the policy of the Encyclopaedia Britanica?  Is this the standard of "World Book" encyclopaedia?  Where did you get this statement from "only current usage"?  Please enlighten me—is this your OWN OPINION or is it from a recognized professional encyclopaedia?  I would like an answer to this.  Where is this quoted from?  Or, as I suppose, this was INVENTED?  Please do quote for me where this "opinion" or "standard" comes from?WHEELER 22:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As of today, still no response to where "only current usage" is the "professional standard" of this or any other encyclopaedia?  Can somebody please document where this comes from and from what encyclopaedic standard does this come from?  Please somebody enlighten me? Because I can't find this standard at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines or at Wikipedia:semi-policy.  Where is this promulgated?WHEELER 15:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The importance of cultural transformation

message: *The role of "Cultural transformation", "radical social change" on knowledge and encyclopaedias? And then what effect and impact on Wikipedia?  What's our policy?
*Is only things in its "Current usage" official Wikipedian Policy?
*Is Wikipedia a "professional encyclopaedia"?  If so and if not, what standards are enforced and some are not? Why are some enforced and some not and if we are professional, aren't we to follow all the standards of a professional encyclopaedia. If we are not a professional encyclopaedia, why the enforced standards on composition of articles?  Why old meanings and words not included then as a professional encyclopaedia would?  What are the standards of a "professional encyclopaedia"?  If we are not a professioanl encyclopaedia, what "kind of encyclopaedia" are we and what standards are there for other kinds of encyclopaedias?  Or are we just "winging" it and making it up as we go along and then we have "some" standards but not "others" and why and wherewithall are the distinctions?  If we are "winging" it what about the rules being made so that only a "certain" type of information will be allowed on Wikipedia? Are the rules such made to include a lot of information but not some minor information?
*Where is the policy on that if pages are deleted they can not be external links from other online encyclopaedias?  Or is this another "secret" policy that is enforced?
*Do the Sysops and Admins and other Wikipedians enforce policy other than what is "official" and promulgated? Is there secret "policies" being enforced at wikipedia?
*What is the policy of putting external links on Talk:pages?WHEELER 15:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions need to be answered