Talk:Michael Dowd

Hrafn, explain your revert.

Hrafn, what is your reason for reverting my edit?

• My edit: 2008-07-28
• Your reversion: 2008-07-29
• My response here: 2008-08-01

For my reference: help:Reverting

LionKimbro (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary for the reversion, your edit was "unsourced", in that it was not cited per WP:CITE. This violates WP:V, and makes it impossible to tell if added material is WP:OR or not. Reversion of such unsourced additions is therefore fairly standard practice on wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pentecostal-style vs Pentecostal

I suggest changing the word "Pentecostal" to "Pentecostal-style" for accuracy. My worldview would be considered heretical by most Pentecostals. The citation in the Oregonian is nearly a direct quote from my publicist's press release - written, I suspect, more to get the media's attention than to be wikipedia accurate. My style is certainly that of a Pentecostal preacher. But the vast majority of Pentecostals in America and throughout the world today, almost all of whom are conservative evangelicals, would not even recognize my theology as biblically Christian, much less Pentecostal.MBDowd (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that we have a source for "Pentecostal" and not one for "Pentecostal-style" (and the standard for inclusion is "verifiability not truth"). If you can provide a source (I suspect that even a self-published one would be acceptable for such a point, as long as it is verifiably yours -- e.g. published on your website) for "Pentecostal-style"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, replacing "Pentecostal" with "Pentecostal-style" will be somewhat of a stopgap. Ideally, the article should describe and contrast your theological position (both in terms of general theology & in terms of how your theology engages evolution -- e.g. how it compares with the 'Evolutionary Creation' delineated by Denis Lamoureux) and describe rather than simply label your "style" of evangelism (particularly for the benefit of readers who've never directly encountered Pentecostalism). This is, I think the sort of information that would be of most interest to readers who come across your article while researching how Christianity & Evolutionary Biology engage and reconcile with each other. However all this would require reliable sources, but it gives usa something to keep our eye out for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn. I'll work on this when I've got some time and post here for your comments/suggestions. 71.191.4.79 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC) MBDowd (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In case some of it is useful, I just cut and pasted a bunch of biographical material from my 2008 Viking book on my talk page. MBDowd (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a short summary of it. Self-description for influences should be fine (and its clearly relevant) -- but it probably pushes the article to the maximum balance of primary-sourced material that would be desirable. I think the 'eclectic influences' is sufficient justification for not being too specific as to your denominational affiliation, so have also changed that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversions that delete sourced material; reversions citing Wiki policy incorrectly

Hrafn, i think you are confused. You have twice today delete/reverted the following paragraph from this page:

Dowd and his wife Connie Barlow, a science writer, travel the country teaching their "Gospel of Evolution." <ref name=statenisland> {{cite news |title=The Gospel of Evolution| author = Leslie Palma-Simoncek |date = 2208-08-10| url= http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1126| accessdate= 2008-09-04 |publisher = Staten Island Advance}}</ref> They present their case for "the marriage of religion and science" at events sponsred by a diverse group of denominations, including [[Christian]], [[Unitarian Universalist]], [[Unity Church]], [[free thinker]], [[New Thought]], [[Religious Science]], and [[secular humanism]] venues. <ref>[http://www.thegreatstory.org/past-itinerary.html Past Speaking Itinerary of Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow]</ref>

The first time you deleted it, you climed that it was

(Rvt: WP:POINT WP:EDITWARring by an editor who wants ALL unverifiable information to be left in articles in GROSS VIOLATION of WP:V) (undo)

It was not edit-warring. I just found some interesting material, wrote it up and and sourced it. You called it a "GROSS VIOLATION of WP:V" -- that is "verifiability," but the material was actually sourced.

I reinstated it.

Within minutes you had deleted it again, this time citing at your rational;

(Rvt: per WP:SELFPUB & WP:LAYOUT) (undo)

But one of the quotes was from the Staten Island Advance (not self-published by Michael Dowd, obviously), and the other was merely a list of past itinerary speaking engagements, used to support the fact that he appears before a wide variety of religious and secular venues. This was self-published, indeed, but it also fully meets the uaability guidelines for self-published references, which are:

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves
Policy shortcuts:
WP:SELFQUEST
WP:SELFPUB

Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:

   1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
   2. it is not contentious;
   3. it is not unduly self-serving;
   4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
   5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
   7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The Past Itineraries list was used to support only the wide variety of venues the subject addresses. It is relevant to notability, it is not contentious, it is not unduly self-serving, it does not involve claims about thrd parties, it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it, and the article itself is not based pimarily on such sources. In other words, the Past Itineraries list satisfies every one of the 7 Wikipedia tests for suitability of inclusion.

I question why you do not discuss these matters here before making deletions -- and why you cannot slow down a bit and let us talk over the issues. I believe that you are misinterpreting key Wikipedia policy matters here. I will not be re-inserting the material today -- i have other work to do, and would certainly not wish to get into an edit-war with you -- but i will return later and see if we cannot seek mediation in some manner. This BLP is important enough to warrant some work, and i am willing to work on it. cat yronwqode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A brief history of this article

1. This article was started as a WP:AUTOBIO by its topic, User:MBDowd, who has also edited it a number of times since.
2. As of the date I first edited it, it was wholly unsourced.
3. I therefore replaced the unsourced & potentially WP:COI material with a sourced stub.
4. Thereafter, in consultation with Dowd, I have expanded the material based on his published self-description of his religious influences in TGFE. As of then it was (at 2,149 bytes) only slightly smaller than the largest unsourced original (2,301 bytes).
5. At this stage, Catherine inserted mainly-unsourced material with an edit summary of "reinstating another valuable portion of text that was summarily deleted by hrafn as part of his campaign to efface spirituality and New Thought pages". I would note that:
   1. The edit summary is pure WP:BAITing.
   2. The majority of the material was unsourced, and therefore in violation of WP:V.
   3. That this material was purporting to be "reinstating" old (and thus potentially WP:AUTOBIO/WP:COI) material, and was thus a controversial edit which should have been discussed on talk first.
      • Further, reverting such controversial edits until they have first been discussed on talk is not inappropriate, per WP:BRD.
6. Catherine then proceeded to reinsert the minority of this material that was sourced to self-published sources.
7. Per WP:SELFPUB, I reverted this as well. Specifically "7. the article is not based primarily on such sources." As of this edit, the article was approximately 1/3 third-party-sourced, 1/3 published primary-sourced & 1/3 self-published primary-sourced -- clearly unbalanced. Additionally, the major portion of the addition was simply a listing of denominations that Dowd had spoken to, cribbed from (and thus bordering on WP:SYNTH of) his 'Past Itinerary' -- hardly high-impact material.
8. Throughout these shenanigans, both Catherine and Madman2001 have repeatedly attempted to retitle the Reference for 'Dowd, Michael (2008)' to "Further readings" -- in spite of the fact that this is a formal reference for the article (cited as "Dowd(2008) pp 1-6") -- in violation of WP:LAYOUT guidelines.
   • Addendum: in this edit, Catherine unilaterally and WP:POINTedly removed the WP:CITE#Shortened footnotes style I set up to facilitate referencing further information to Dowd's book (when further relevant third party material is added to balance it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I will close by pointing out that, far from bearing the topic an ideological animus, I am in complete agreement with Dowd's central thesis -- that Christianity and Evolution are compatible with each other. I would quite happily recommend his book to any Evangelical wrestling with the compatibility of the two, as I would recommend Kenneth R. Miller's Finding Darwin's God to a Catholic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Evolutionary evangelist", yes. "Christian preacher", not quite

As my past itinerary and programs page both show, for the last seven years I have spoken more often in non-Christian setting than in Christian churches. It is true, as I discuss in my book, Thank God for Evolution, and on my website that I consider myself an "evolutionary Christian". But this is markedly different from a traditional, biblically-oriented Christian. For example, I see science as revealing "God's word" far more accurately than ancient texts could ever hope to. When 95% of Americans hear "Christian preacher" they think of something that is just not accurate about me. Thus, I suggest dropping "Christian preacher" from the first sentence. MBDowd (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As the citation for this description was broken (and unwaybackable) I've removed it. However, I think that your argument is not compelling. Streets aren't Christian but street preachers often are. It's not so much the forum, as the content of the talk, that matters. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Hrafn. Give me your address and I'll be happy to send you 3 DVDs of my best and most popular programs. I'm confident that you will quickly agree that 'Christian preacher' is not a label that would even come to your mind to use in describing me to your friends, or fellow wikipedians. In any event, thanks for the removal. More accurate now. And my email address, if you care to email me your snail mail location, is: Michael@ThankGodforEvolution.com MBDowd (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My last comment on this topic: Here are some responses to my/our programs and book from a wide variety of religious, non-religious, and even anti-religious folk (many of whom represent organizations that would not have invited me to speak had they thought of me as a 'Christian preacher', or had my content indicated that I was one). MBDowd (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dowd(2008) pp 1-6

The current reference 1 reads "Dowd(2008) pp 1-6". Is this Thank God for Evolution? - Eldereft (cont.) 17:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would assume so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. MBDowd (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for confirming. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing Elements

Much gratitude to those of you editing this page! FYI...three things quite significant in my life are not yet mentioned:

1. I was married to Alison Rene for 13 years (1982-1995) and we have three children: Sheena Aileen Dowd, born in 1982, Shane Michael Dowd, born in 1985, and Miriam Joy Dowd, born in 1990.

2. From 1987-1995, I pastored three congregations: in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Michigan.

3. In 1995 I was a religious organizer for the National Environmental Trust. I went on to manage the Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign in Portland, Oregon from 1996-2000, and Global Action Plan's EcoTeam and Livable Neighborhood Programs in Rockland County, New York, from 2000-2002. Connie and I have spoken to more than a thousand groups across North America since 2002. MBDowd (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael: we'll need WP:RSes for verifiability -- "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I'll see if I can track down third party sources. There is one error, however. Since 1995 I have not had official standing with the United Church of Christ. So it is inaccurate to say that I am currently a UCC minister (as it does under my picture). Also, as you probably already know, I left you a message on your talk page questioning the the redirect of the Epic of Evolution page to my page. MBDowd (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

From Jlrobertson

In gathering material to properly reference the article on epic of evolution, I gathered a good bit on Michael Dowd who appears to be a very active minister in discussing the issue. Thought I would include it in his article. Also a good way to ‘practice doing things right’, Would you please take a look at it and advise before I add any of it to his page? It’s at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jlrobertson Thanks Jerald RobertsonJlrobertson (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn, Jlrobertson alerted me to the fact that he was working on possible edits to my page in his sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jlrobertson I told him that I did not have the experience nor the objectivity to comment other than to say that it seemed to me that there was WAY too much WP:POV. I strongly suggested that he ask you for your feedback before changing anything, which he indicated that he would do. I just noticed, however, that he mistakenly posted the above on the Epic of Evolution page. I've cut and pasted his comment and question to you from that talk page here, in case you or another experienced wikipedian is willing to coach him in this process. MBDowd (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Jlrobertson's rewrite

[Copied from User talk:Jlrobertson Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ]

Michael asked me to take a look at your rewrite and give comments:

1. (Such rewrites usually go in a sandbox (a subpage of your userpage, usually called something like User:Jlrobertson/sandbox, rather than in your main user page.)
2. It is unclear whether EnlightenNext Magazine is a reliable source. I would suggest a more solid source as a primary basis for your article.
3. It is better to state what "The New York Times Magazine and The Washington Post to the National Catholic Reporter, NPR, the BBC" have to say about him, rather than simply mentioning their coverage. Such sources are far more appropriate basis for an article than EnlightenNext.
4. Your proposed rewrite relies too heavily on primary sources -- particularly Dowd's writings & websites
5. Generally, it is better to include information (e.g. from philosophers and theologians) that engage Dowd's ideas in detail, rather than fairly vague or superficial praise (particularly in the case of the 'endorsements', when they are unsourced.
6. Amazon user reviews are never reliable sources.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Additionally the tone of the proposed rewrite is not particularly neutral -- most glaring example is your recent edit, in the lead no less, calling his wife "acclaimed". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jerald, I just read the latest version of what you've been working on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jlrobertson/sandboxDOWD and I agree with Hrafn (both his comments above and also below, re EnlightenNext). Most wiki pages sound rather boring and encyclopedia-like because they strive to be free of POV (point of view). That's a good thing! I think you still have way too much POV in your sandbox version. I suggest you re-read this page on Neutral Point of View: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV Thank for being willing to offer your feedback and coaching, Hrafn! MBDowd (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

EnlightenNext magazine

The Enlighten Next magazine was questioned by Hrafn as to it being a reliable sources. It has won 2 Webby Awards for Internet excellence. It has hosted articles by the Dalai Lama, George Ellis, Susan Blackmore, Deepak Chopra, Mario Cuomo, Robert Wright and Michael Dowd (3 times). I think it is a very good source - THE WEBBY AWARDS - The Webby Awards is the leading international award honoring excellence on the Internet. Established in 1996 during the Web's infancy, the Webbys are presented by The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, a 550-member body of leading Web experts, business figures, luminaries, visionaries and creative celebrities. http://www.webbyawards.com/about/ Jlrobertson (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Please don't sign section headings.
2. My point is that EnlightenNext is not an objective mainstream news source or scholarly source, but rather has as its mission promotion of a set of worldviews that includes Dowd's own. This does not disqualify it as a source, but does mean it should be used with caution. Combining your very frequent citation of it with likewise frequent citation to Dowd's own writings and websites, makes for a very problematic article.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reworked and better referenced

This article was reduced to Stub-class due to the deletion of its non-sourced material. I have attempted to correct those deficiencies with a major rewrite and spruce it up with some graphics. In gathering material on another topic, I got a good bit on Michael Dowd that could be used here. The many references (majority of which are not from Dowd sources) are from notable people, sources and books and demonstrate his notability. In reworking it, I gathered a mountain of material but only a portion of it was used in order to keep the length of the article within Wiki bounds. In the process I got to meet and hear Dowd and in my evaluation he lived up to his press (now than is real verifiability, at least for me). His accomplishments and unique endeavor make him not only notable but also controversial.Jlrobertson (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

and I have reverted, per concerns previously raised on this rewrite in #Comments on Jlrobertson's rewrite, which you do not appear to have rectified. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored

I have returned this to the earlier version with most edits retained. It was properly referenced. Dowd has cancer and his fate is unknown at this time. I have met the man when he come to Cincinnati. Nice guy but a bit of an Elmer Gantry. I am not of his Christian belief but don't hold that against him as some may. I respect his effort and commitment to liberalize Christian thinking about evolution. The past deletions of his article, although initially to correct self-promotion, were not justified in subsequent work in my opinion.

This restored version is full of peacock terms, puffery and promotion it has lost all it's encyclopedic tone.Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've have cleaned it up a good bit. I do not have a close connection with Dowd! That comment had no basis other than my above comment. Would I put it in here if I did? I removed it.

Dowd's new message

I need to find some reference to this online by I know Michael Dowd personally and his message is shifting somewhat from focusing on evolution to focusing on reality itself with "getting right with reality" being the main theme and evolution being a subset of the reality theme. Marcperkel (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, you need to find reliable third party references before you add any material especially if you are a friend because you would have a conflict of interest.Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gratitude

Theroadislong, thank you for consistently removing the puffery and opinion and helping make this read more like a genuine encyclopedia entry. When I read a version last year it felt more like a biography than an encyclopedia entry. Your contribution, not only to this page, but for all that you've done (and do) on the wikipedia, is greatly appreciated. MBDowd (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)