Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	32 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours
Methylphenidate	Closed	Димитрий Улянов Иванов (t)	8 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 3 hours
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	2 days,	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 5 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 04:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Machine Elf 1735 on 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

• Eternalism (philosophy of time) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Four-dimensionalism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:Hypnosifl added an S.M.Carroll reference to eternalism in support of the statement that "It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory". Unfortunately, he also included WP:OR in the ref: ""Eternalism, "block universe" and "block time" are understood as synonymous terms by philosophers". Later he claims that Carroll was "not good" (because "It" was in reference to a Kurt Vonnegut example). That's misleading however, because Carroll does go on to specify eternalism... While it's clearly amenable with a 4D view of time, sources offer examples of eternalism that predate a "block universe" 4D view of time, and they stop short of equating the two as "synonymous". I've asked User:Hypnosifl several times not to accommodate his additions to the lede by removing existing material.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Hypnosifl (talk · contribs)
• Machine Elf 1735 (talk · contribs)

Reviving the dead thread Talk:Four-dimensionalism#Elephant in the room - possible redundancy, User:Hypnosifl proactively set me up as an opponent to the edits he intended to make at Eternalism (philosophy of time).

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

see TL;DR at Talk:Four-dimensionalism#Elephant in the room - possible redundancy and edit summaries at Eternalism (philosophy of time) and User talk:Hypnosifl#Edit Warring.

• How do you think we can help?

Do you think you can help? If so, how?

Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you think DRN can help? If so, how? is the question. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

It sounds like weasel words to say 'some' and not specify who. Also sounds like WP:OR, we need names and sources. If it cannot be backed up then it should be removed. I'm not going to jump into some esoteric article and begin dictating the matter, but if you can't provide a reliable source (anyone, doesn't matter who), then I wouldn't include it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying but just to clarify, the weasel word is in the source and this is the lede... specific advocates are given in the body. I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case I would note that were appropriate for context, even if they are different views or predating current thinking it does not discount the views themselves for having a similar appearance or association. It is good to provide both sides even if they seem silly when a close connection or similarity exists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Hypnosifl can explain for himself, but he wanted to say is that eternalism is "synonymous" with block universe theory. He can't source it because apparently no one says that. There is no other dispute.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that after MachineElf objected to "synonymous", I immediately changed it to "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "block universe" theory", directly reflecting the language of the quoted sources (all written by professional philosophers), and all my further edits have avoided "synonymous", so I don't think it's reasonable to treat this as the basis for the dispute. My original reason for using "synonymous" was that I thought any reasonable parsing of the statements by the sources would indicate they were treating them as synonymous (obviously, any sourced claim in a wikipedia article that doesn't directly quote the source requires some small amount of parsing to understand that the sentence in the article is an accurate paraphrase of the accompanying source). Here we are talking about professional philosophers discussing the formal terms "eternalism" and "block time", and the sources say the following:

'The third and more popular theory is that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past, and future because the differences are merely subjective. This view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism.”' (source)

'Block universe theory: Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real. The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions. Also called "eternalism."' (source)

'It is commonly held that relativity favors the "block universe" view (known also as "eternalism"), according to which all events enjoy the same ontological status regardless of their location' (source)

'It does not help, either, that there is a tendency to conflate eternalism — the four-dimensional "block universe" view — with causal determinism.' (source)

When philosophers say that a given view, first identified with formal name "A", is "also known as" formal name "B", or say things like 'this view is called "A", or "B"', I think it's a perfectly reasonable parsing to say that A and B are just different terms for the exact same philosophical view, i.e. synonymous. But since the sources did not use the precise word synonymous and MachineElf objected, I figured a reasonable compromise would be the "Eternalism ... is also known as the block universe theory", directly reflecting the "also called" and "known also as" in two of the sources above. MachineElf continues to object, insisting that the sentence be replaced by a weaker claim that eternalism is "sometimes referred to as the block time or block universe perspective", presumably based on MachineElf's feeling that for at least some philosophers there is a conceptual distinction between the terms as indicated by his/her comment above "I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do." But MachineElf hasn't actually provided a single example of a source written by a professional philosopher that says this--the source after his/her "sometimes" version is a book by the physicist Sean Carroll, and Carroll does not actually say that there is any distinction between the terms (he first introduces the terms "block time" and "block universe" to describe the view that all times are equally real, then later he says "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," suggesting he does not see any distinction. For further discussion between MachineElf and I about the Carroll quote, see this section of my user talk page (I have requested MachineElf's permission to move it to the Eternalism talk page so that others will be more likely to see it and weigh in). Hypnosifl (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, it might help if MachineElf could expand a little on the comment that "I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do." Are you suggesting that if there was a historical philosopher who had made arguments about all times being equally real in a time period that "predates the concept of spacetime", then no one would call them an advocate of the "block universe", and therefore that the modern philosophers who define "eternalism" to be synonymous with "block universe" would also not call them a historical advocate of "eternalism"? If so, I think that's a misunderstanding--while the origin of the term "block universe" may have to do with relativity, this debate is about what philosophical ideas the terms denote for modern philosophers, and the ones I quoted suggest they are both understood to denote nothing more than the idea that all times have equal ontological status. So if some ancient philosopher, like Dogen, expressed a view that seemed to be saying all times have equal ontological status, it would be correct to say that "they advocated the view that is today described by the term 'block universe'", even though they would have been unaware of the idea of time as a dimension in a four-dimensional block. The fact that the words of the term may have been inspired by 20th century ideas has nothing to do with what philosophers understand the term to mean in a technical sense.Hypnosifl (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don’t understand the issue here as it seems clear cut to me. What became known as the “block universe.” as first formulated by Minkowski based upon his erstwhile math student’s illustrious work, is a construct of physics, while “eternalism” is a philosophical derivation. Although both Minkowski and Einstein were eternalists, they stopped short of actually stating that the theory demanded eternalism, though Einstein came close to stating such in his fifth appendix to the fifteenth edition of his book: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. He stated: “It appears…more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence.”

One of the first to discern the true depth of Minkowski’s arguments and his true intent was the German mathematician Hermann Weyl who about two decades after Minkowski delivered his famous speech made a defining observation regarding what came to be known as the block universe that has significant relevance to what you are asking here. He observed: “The objective world simply is, it does not happen.”

Therefore, the concepts of the block universe and eternalism are certainly not synonymous in form anymore than an American is synonymous with America. Whether this is also true in substance is somewhat debatable. However, a good case might be made that the two concepts are synonymous in substance. What seems to constitute the final nail in the coffin for the presentist position is perhaps the most salient prediction of STR, the relativity of simultaneity. It is simply not tenable to account for this within a three-dimensional paradigm of reality (with time being an independent entity rather than embedded with the three dimensions of space to form the four-dimensional, holistic entity now called spacetime). For an excellent discussion of this point, I would commend to you the following paper by a philosopher at a Canadian university whose research and insights I have found to be invaluable in formulating my own opinions.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf

Nevertheless, the proposition that the ‘block universe” demands eternalism is not universally accepted. Therefore, an editor is wrong in removing material that casts doubt upon the proposition in favor of inserting material which at least implies that there is no credible dissent to the proposition.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)'

HistoryBuff, does your statement that the block universe is a "construct of physics" mean that you are saying that you understand the term "block universe" to be one that does not necessarily refer to a philosophical claim about the ontology of different times (treating them as equally real), but rather can be understand to refer just to the physical/mathematical content of Minkowski's formulation of relativity (which, as a physical theory, cannot properly be understood to make any philosophical claims about ontology, even if it may suggest that eternalism is a better fit for the physics than presentism)? If that is what you're saying, can you provide any sources that say the same thing? The paper you link to doesn't seem to say this, although it talks about various physicists drawing ontological conclusions from the physics--in the introduction it says that taking the block universe view means "regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world", with "timelessly existing" being an ontological claim. I have never seen "block universe" used to refer only to physical claims about relativity, or to mathematical formulations of relativity, although the name is inspired by Minkowski's version as MachineElf demonstrated to me (pointing to this reference). On the other hand, if you're saying that you just don't distinguish between the physical content of Minkowski's work and the ontological claims of the "block universe" view, I think that's a view philosophers would disagree with, even if physicists themselves might sometimes fail to distinguish them. The author of the paper you link to does seem to think that there is a unique ontology compatible with the physics seen in relativity, but he does argue this conclusion at length rather than saying that relativity itself is an ontological theory (and always seems to use "block universe" to refer to the ontological conclusions, not the physics itself...nor does he mention the word "eternalism" so that paper can't be used as evidence for a difference in meaning between "eternalism" and "block universe"). Moreover, he admits he is in the minority in this view: see p. 19, where he writes It is a widely accepted view that "relativistic mechanics does not carry a particular ontological interpretation upon its sleeve". I would say this widely accepted view is the correct one, since nothing in the physics would change if there was an "ontologically preferred frame" which was completely indistinguishable from other frames by experiment, but a discussion about this issue would be getting away from the question of whether there are any reliable sources that argue for any difference between the terms "block universe" and "eternalism". Hypnosifl (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The former. Einstein thought he was theorizing a new paradigm describing the nature of realty and not some philosophical treatise. In fact, as is commonly known, it was Minkowski who discerned the deeper implications of the great man’s work; a discernment that Einstein was reluctant to embrace at first. He eventually did. You want me to find a source for this assertion? If so, I shall try to dig one up but I can’t remember exactly where I read it first.

I wrote a philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind, not necessarily God in the traditional sense; it could just as well be an extra-dimensional computer program) based upon the fact that I don’t see how the eternalist model of the block universe (which I am convinced is correct assuming a materialist reality) can accommodate causality from within, notwithstanding the fact that it seems absurd on an empirical basis to deny causality exists. Therefore, causality must have been operative from without in a higher dimensional time. It is difficult to pin down exactly what Einstein’s ontological views were, except to say he was certainly not a believer in God. Whether he had been an atheist or an agnostic is open to debate. Therefore, he certainly wouldn’t have agreed with my proof. Still, it is based upon the apparent implications of his theory.

This is no different than discussing the implications of Copernicus’s heliocentric cosmology which ticked off a lot of churchmen wedded to a literal interpretation of certain Biblical events. Copernicus was not making any theological or philosophical statement. He was simply putting forth a new physical paradigm of reality.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You want me to find a source for this assertion?

Yes, that would be helpful. But I'm still confused about what you're asserting--you say "Einstein thought he was theorizing a new paradigm describing the nature of realty and not some philosophical treatise", but "nature of reality" sounds like a claim about ontology, not about physics alone free from any philosophical claims. So when you say "the former", I'm not clear on how your statement relates to my original question which asked if you understood "block universe" to sometimes refer to the physical content of relativity or its mathematical formulation, free of any ontological claims about whether all times are equally "real". Are you saying "yes" to that question (i.e., saying some professional philosophers do use "block universe" to refer to a non-philosophical theory of physics), or are you saying that the people who came up with the term "block universe" just didn't distinguish between physical claims and ontological claims, and understood relativity itself to be making ontological claims about all times being equally real? Hypnosifl (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I mean, at least, is that Einstein, through algebra, positioned a theory with predictions that were or might some day become testable such as time dilation, length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. At this point in its formulation, it was a mere mathematical construct with no ontological overtones. It was Minkowski adding a geometrical view of spacetime that placed ontological overtones to the theory that Weyl later spelled out. Although it appears to be incomprehensible to the human intellect (at least), what I would term the “ultimate mystery” is that somewhere within reality (either within our dimension or one a priori to ours)someone or something must “just is” (exists eternally with no beginning; timelessly) which forms the ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. (“I am who am.”) To Weyl, that would be the universe itself, the sum total of MEST as opposed to a theist’s God. In my proof, I dispute this contention as illogical because of the obvious existence of causality that does not seem to be able to be accounted for within an eternalist paradigm.

Regarding a source for Einstein not at first accepting Minkowki’s interpretation as literal, it is stated in the Wiki article for Minkowski that Einstein viewed his former teacher’s model as a mathematical trick. A blogger I found states the same, though I can’t pin an actual source at the moment, maybe a biography of Einstein. I think it is pretty much common knowledge which is why perhaps it is not sourced in the Wiki article.

This particular blogger is like most of us here, a very intelligent layman to the fields of physics and philosophy. Aside from iterating what I discussed above, he spends a lot of time in this post discussing his views on the differentiation of mathematical constructs and reality. I don’t agree with him in his article’s entirety.

Here’s the link:

http://enquiriesnw.com/2012/05/28/space-time-and-reality/HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hypnosifl, I've explained more than once:

He introduced the concept with a popular example from fiction. He most certainly did name "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch", sometimes called "block time" or "block universe", and in due course, he went on to say that he had been speaking about eternalism. It's WP:TENDENTIOUS to claim there's nothing in Carroll 'that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by [ALL] philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory'. But if 'sometimes' didn't make it clear enough, he belabors the point: 'Opinions differ, of course. The struggle to understand time is a puzzle of long standing, and what is "real" and what is "useful" have been very much up for debate.' Yes, he does say that eternalism is sometimes called "block time" or "block universe"... as opposed to Augustine's presentism: "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real." The so-called '"It [eternalism] is sometimes known as block time" edit' was preexisting text and your bold subsequent edit has been challenged, see WP:BRD.

— User talk:Hypnosifl#Edit Warring

No philosopher who traces eternalism back to Parmenides would seriously claim that Minkowski "block time/block universe" originated in the 5th century BCE. Again, it's merely WP:TENDENTIOUS to repeat ad nauseum that you don't need a cite.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am a volunteer here at DRN. I've flagged this dispute for attention - sorry that we haven't had time to look at this yet. I ask you all to hold off on discussion until myself or another volunteer comments further. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a look on it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If there were a consensus to support Hyponosifl's attempted rollback of the lede to a point prior to the dispute, I wouldn't object, but his own cites argue against his position and whereas they're arguably too numerous for the lede, removing valid cites seems like the wrong way to go... At any rate, if we could avoid confusing the issue with unrelated edits, that might help the volunteers here hone in on the dispute. Would page protection be in order, while discussion is on hold?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've requested page protection as Hypnosifl insists on making extensive edits while this discussion is on hold.[1][2]—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggested rolling back the lede to the point immediately before the dispute began as a temporary solution until a consensus is formed, since it doesn't seem fair to leave it on either of our modified versions if the other disagrees with the modifications. I don't think my unrelated edits confuse the issue since they have nothing to do with the subject of the dispute (namely, whether any modern philosophers understand there to be a difference in meaning between the terms "eternalism" and "block universe"), and I didn't have a problem with the unrelated edits MachineElf made to the "Determinism and Indeterminism" section while the dispute was already going on (see this 27 July edit by MachineElf), so it seems unfair that he/she wants to preserve the "Determinism and Indeterminism" edit while making a blanket rule that I can't make any further edits to any sections (even if MachineElf has no specific objections to the content of these edits). I am not aware of any wikipedia rule that says that when a dispute is in progress, the people involved are forbidden from making any further changes to the page even if these changes have nothing to do with what they were disputing. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to preserve your additional cites each time, but I see no reason for a flurry of presumably unrelated changes... the direct quote of Popper regarding his discussion with Einstein is related: ‘the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. (He agreed that his had been his view, and while discussing it I called him "Parmenides".)’.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring with misleading edit summaries.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As I just commented on the talk page, I don't see how that edit was edit warring, or how it contained a misleading summary.Hypnosifl (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't see how 3 reverts in less than 6 hours based solely on your unilateral "temporary" solution could be construed as edit warring?[3][4][5] You don't see how your edit summary is misleading? "no justification for restoring your version of the lede from the pre-dispute version"... I provided justification 1) in both of my edit summaries,[6][7] 2) on the article talk page,[8] 3) on this page,[9] and 4) on the request for page protection.[10] You may not think it's sufficient justification, but it's misleading to revert a third time claiming "no justification" as if I haven't said a word. Frankly, calling it "my version" is a laugh, as it's merely an attempt to incorporate your cites, and where verifiable, your changes to the article text. Again, I'm really not surprised you want to remove your cites, as they don't support your position. I added the direct quote from Popper (which would actually support your position, unless it's taken tongue-in-cheek), prior to your participation in dispute resolution and unlike your recent changes, it was not added simultaneously with a unilateral change to the lede. Very simply, I asked you not to "make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", and you've repeatedly refused to comply.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, calling it "my version" is a laugh, as it's merely an attempt to incorporate your cites, and where verifiable, your changes to the article text.

It's "your version" with respect to the one issue that is the source of this entire dispute--namely, the fact that you continually reverted my edits saying that eternalism is "also known as" block time (even though two of the sources I posted used near-identical wording), changing it to "sometimes known as", apparently because of your belief (which you have never provided a single source to confirm) that they can only be equated "sometimes" because block time is also "sometimes" defined to mean something a bit different than eternalism, with the block time definition supposedly involving 20th century conceptions of "spacetime" while the eternalism definition does not (as seen in your comment above, I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do.) If you could provide a source for this claim, this whole dispute could be easily resolved, as my opinion on this issue could be easily changed with an example of a single professional philosopher specifying that he/she uses the terms to mean different things.

— Hypnosifl (07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)

I'm not the only user to disagree with Hypnosifl's WP:BOLD attempt to remove, contrary to the source he, himself, provided, the preexisting language that eternalism is sometimes called "block universe" or "block time". Again, he WP:TENDENTIOUSLY mischaracterizes a simple issue of WP:V as "apparently because of [my] belief" which, needless to say, I would have "never provided a single source to confirm"... Despite his egregious number of citations, he has not provided a source that says it's "always" called that... nothing that contradicts his original source's assertion that it is "sometimes" called that. No one is saying eternalism is not "also known as" block universe or block time, "sometimes" at least... His own sources make it clear that the "block" in "block universe"/"block time" refers to Minkowski's 20th century conception of spacetime, (while some playfully flirt with the anachronism of Minkowski spacetime originating in the 5th century BC via Parmenides). Given the dissenting source that he, himself, provided, I'm merely disputing that it's verifiable all philosophers see them as synonymous, tout court.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Until the dispute is resolved, though, it seems unfair to say that the version left on the page should be the one that is "yours" with respect to the central issue being disputed here. That's why I suggested the temporary solution of reverting to the earlier version of the lede that neither of us had written while we waited for the dispute to be resolved; the first of the three edits of mine you mentioned above was doing this, I'd hardly call it "edit warring" to revert to a neutral version of the lede, especially since I had proposed this on the talk page a little more than 22 hours earlier. But then after I made some other changes to the rest of the article (unrelated to our dispute, and not changes that you have raised any specific objections to) you reverted all of the changes including the change to a more neutral lede, so my second edit was restoring the neutral lede and explaining what I had done in the edit note, as well as pointing out that the other changes I made were unrelated to our dispute so there seemed no good reason for you to revert them. Again I don't see this as edit warring, because I thought there was a decent chance you had misunderstood the changes I had made, not realizing that my change to the lede and my changes to the rest of the article were completely neutral with regard to the subject of our dispute.

— Hypnosifl (07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)

Please note they're both "mine", ‘with respect to the central issue being disputed here’, because the version Hypnosifl is demanding also says "sometimes". Although there are too many cites for something so trivial, I think it's a shame to remove every one of them, and I don't condone his unilateral "temporary solution". While confusing the issue with simultaneous edits to other parts of the article, and having received no response as to whether his proposal would be "acceptable as a temporary solution", he reverted back to the unsourced edition 3 times in less than 6 hours, and argued about it non-stop thereafter: because it's not edit warring if I might have misunderstood the neutrality of all his edits, for example...—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you reverted the whole thing again, in spite of the fact that you had said on the talk page "I don't have a problem with rolling back the lede to the point just prior to your first edit if there's a consensus for it". Based on that, I figured that when your two edit notes said "please do not make a series of extensive changes to the article while dispute resolution is pending" and "please do *not* make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", the "extensive changes" you talked about referred to the additional new paragraphs I had added to the rest of the article, not the reversion of the lede to a pre-dispute version which you claimed to have no problem with. Since I didn't think those edit notes were referring to the lede, that's why I said you had provided "no justification" for reverting my change to the lede. And that's why I made that third edit where I restored the pre-dispute lede but didn't attempt to restore my additions to the rest of the article until a decision was reached about blocking all further changes to the article (in spite of the fact that my additions were unrelated to the dispute, and you provided no link to any wiki rules saying that editors involved in a dispute should avoid making edits to the rest of the article that don't involve the subject of their dispute, and if such a rule existed you would have been violating it anyway--your comment above that you added the Popper material prior to my posting in the dispute resolution thread myself doesn't really explain how this isn't a double standard, given that you had already started the dispute resolution process yourself at that point). If you want to say that your edit notes requesting I not make any changes were meant to include reverting the lede to the pre-dispute version, hopefully you can at least see how I might be genuinely confused (rather than being intentionally "misleading") given your comment on the talk page about having "no problem" with temporarily reverting the lede in this way.

— Hypnosifl (07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)

He conveniently ignores the part about consensus... but it's correct that I ‘provided no link to any wiki rules saying that editors involved in a dispute should avoid making edits to the rest of the article’ when the volunteers ask them not to even continue the discussion until they get a chance to catch up. Apart from the contorted rationalization via putting different words in my mouth, it's false that ‘if such a rule existed [I] would have been violating it anyway’. I'm merely saying that if the discussion is on hold, it goes without saying that one should hold off on unilateral edits too. Finally, I've never claimed Hypnosifl was ‘being intentionally "misleading"’, just that his edit summaries, excuses, etc. are, in fact, misleading.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm really not surprised you want to remove your cites, as they don't support your position.

This is the second time you've suggested that I wanted to revert to the pre-dispute lede because I secretly realized the sources supported your position, despite the fact that I have already denied that this is the reason and explained my specific objections to your arguments for saying the sources support your position (objections which you said you won't respond to on the talk page while the dispute resolution process is on hold), seems rather like a rather disrespectful speculation about my personal motives, and perhaps represents an attempt to taunt or bait me. Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Civility, in which the following types of behaviors are strongly discouraged: "personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours—when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict." And of course, if you think I have been personally disrespectful towards you in some way (as opposed to just disagreeing with you about editing issues), please say something. Hypnosifl (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Although he hadn't made that claim in reference to his "temporary solution", I am willing to stipulate that he still has no idea the sources argue strongly against his WP:OR by providing counter examples. My position is not the opposite of that WP:OR, and it's ridiculous to suggest an WP:RS would directly address WP:OR, particularly WP:OR that's trivially false apart from some qualified sense. At any rate, I've certainly never promised him responses to his objections pending the status of the dispute resolution process and I don't see how assuming intellectual competence ‘seems rather like a rather disrespectful speculation about [his] personal motives and perhaps represents an attempt to taunt or bait’ him... but that was a prelude to specious accusations of incivility and personal attacks. I most certainly do think he's been personally disrespectful, despite repeated requests that he stop mischaracterizing my intentions, stop putting words in my mouth, stop referring to me altogether... to which he replied: ‘I suppose as long as you don't plan to edit the statements in the opening paragraph of Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) saying that eternalism is synonymous with the 4D block universe view, then your opinion on this issue doesn't have any further relevance to editing, so in that case I'm happy to drop it.’—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am another dispute resolution volunteer. Ebe123 has already volunteered to take a look at this dispute, but can you guys please hold off on further discussion here until they (or another one of us) has done so? If you're only talking with each other, you might as well do it on the article talk page. If you're making the same arguments without convincing each other, then yes, that's part of what DRN is for, but it serves no purpose to keep talking past each other here without anyone else's input, except to glaze over the eyes of the volunteers with TL;DR syndrome. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Writ Keeper

Hey, guys, I'm (yet another) volunteer. With Ebe123's permission, I'll hijack it, if I may. So, let me give the briefest of summaries, just to check my understanding of the situation: at the start, everyone is happy with the wording of the lede, where it says that eternalism is sometimes equated with block time and/or block universe. Hypnosifl adds a reference with some commentary in it that basically contradicts the "sometimes" bit; while the actual text in the lede is still not in dispute, one of the footnotes says, in Wikipedia's voice, that the consensus of philosophers think of eternalism and the other two terms as synonymous. MachineElf objects to this on grounds of verifiability, as only one of the sources supports that it is a generally-held view, and adds quotes from the sources for context. Hypnosifl says that the quotes don't mean what you think they mean, and we're off to the races, with the dispute spilling out into the text of the lede itself and picking up other elements as well, like the whole relativity/Minkowski part. But the fundamental positions, as it were, seem to be that MachineElf says that "eternalism is sometimes considered the same as block universe" and Hypnosifl says that "eternalism is always considered the same as block universe".

So, if I got that right (and please tell me if I don't!), here's my suggestion, for which I'd be interested on hearing your feedback. First, I'd say we revert the wording of the lede itself back to what's used before this fracas started, so that we don't have to worry about the whole relativity/Minkowski diagram bit. That may be an issue that needs to be discussed, but it's a separate issue, so let's deal with the one at hand first. It also has the advantage (IMO) of getting rid of some of the qualifications and limited definitions and so on that got introduced over the debate, which look like they're more confusing than helpful to the casual reader. So, the question becomes this: Hypnosifl, are you solid enough in that position that you want to remove the word "sometimes" from the text of the lede itself? You didn't remove it from the lede when you first started, and that's what confused me at first. If you don't want to remove it, then the issue can probably be fixed just by removing the additional text in the footnote, so that it doesn't contradict the sentence it's supposed to support, and letting the refs stand on their own (probably in separate ref tags, but that's just stylistic). If you do want to remove the word from the lede, then we have a bit more to discuss. What do y'all think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I've no objections to any of that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 07:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypnosifl adds a reference with some commentary in it that basically contradicts the "sometimes" bit; while the actual text in the lede is still not in dispute, one of the footnotes says, in Wikipedia's voice, that the consensus of philosophers think of eternalism and the other two terms as synonymous.

That's not my understanding of the dispute; at least, I don't recall to Machine Elf objecting to any one of the four sources I added in particular, and I also don't see that any of the sources provides stronger support for the notion that they are synonymous than the others (all four support this notion about equally, AFAIK, though none use the word synonymous--that's why, after Machine Elf complained about my "synonymous" edit, I changed it to "also known as", which is near-identical wording to two of the sources.) If you think one source supports my claim more strongly than the others, can you specify which of the four you're talking about? Here they are again:

'The third and more popular theory is that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past, and future because the differences are merely subjective. This view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism.”' (source)

'Block universe theory: Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real. The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions. Also called "eternalism."' (source)

'It is commonly held that relativity favors the "block universe" view (known also as "eternalism"), according to which all events enjoy the same ontological status regardless of their location' (source)

'It does not help, either, that there is a tendency to conflate eternalism — the four-dimensional "block universe" view — with causal determinism.' (source)

Incidentally, I since spotted another reference (written by a professional philosopher of science), which I'd like to add to the article once this dispute is resolved:

"Many philosophers have taken the view, known as 'the block universe theory' or 'eternalism', that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past, and future." (source)

So, the question becomes this: Hypnosifl, are you solid enough in that position that you want to remove the word "sometimes" from the text of the lede itself? You didn't remove it from the lede when you first started, and that's what confused me at first.

Yes, unless a source is found where a professional philosopher mentions some distinction in meaning between the terms. Not sure what you mean when you say I didn't remove it from the lede at first, my initial edit did remove it, (edit: sorry, now I see what you mean, I notice now that I added the claim that they are synonymous in the footnote while leaving the main text the same; but this would leave no confusion in the mind of readers who read the footnote, whereas if the main text read "sometimes" while the footnote just offered some sources without commenting on the issue of the equivalence of the terms, I think the issue would be a lot less clear to readers) then after Machine Elf objected to my calling the terms "synonymous" and reverted that, my next edit also removed "sometimes referred to" from the article, which I changed to Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "block universe" theory. Hypnosifl (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so now that we've focused the dispute, let's get into it. It seems to me that the sources do support Hypnosifl's position. I don't think we can really draw any conclusion from the Carroll source on way or another; the transitive connection between the terms are too loose. Moreover, while he does use the word "sometimes", he uses it in a way that doesn't need to imply a difference between the terms; if position A is sometimes called B, that doesn't have to mean that, the rest of the time, B refers to something else; it could just mean that B is rarely-used. The other sources that Hypnosifl lists seem to indicate that "block universe" and "eternalism" mean the same thing, in fairly uncontroversial terms. So, the question is now for MachineElf: what's making you support the word "sometimes" in the main text of the lede? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you expand on how it seems to you that the sources support Hypnosifl's position and what that is? Carroll is a clear counter example, the various meanings attached to "block universe" do not simplistically coincide with those of "eternalism":

• British Broadcasting Corporation (1970). The Listener. British Broadcasting Corporation. p. 141. ISSN 0024-4392. LCCN sn96046406. This idea is essentially that of the ' block universe ' — a term coined by William James according to which the world is like a film strip: the photographs are already there and are merely being exhibited to us.

• Jammer, M. (2006). Concepts of Simultaneity: From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond. Concepts of Simultaneity. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 78. ISBN 9780801884221. LCCN 2006048564. [For] Berkeley "time" was nothing but "the succession of ideas in our minds," it follows that for God, in whose mind, as Berkeley expressively stated, there is no success, time as defined by Berkeley does not exist. Moreover, because past, present, and future are "actually present," in God's mind, He sees them as what human beings would call "simultaneously." That kind of simultaneity exists when we look at the representation of the past, present, and future in a diagram of what is now called the "block universe," a term that was coined in 1890 by William James...

• Whitrow, G.J. (1980). The Natural Philosophy of Time. Oxford Science Publications. Clarendon Press. p. 274. ISBN 9780198582120. LCCN lc79041145. Weyl's view, like Einstein's, was essentially that of the 'block universe', to use the term coined by William James to denote the hypothesis that the world is like a film strip: the photographs are already there and are merely being exhibited to us.

• Borchert, D.M. (2006). Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Masaryk - Nussbaum. Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Masaryk-Nussbaum. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 326. ISBN 9780028657868. LCCN 2005018573. It has been characteristic of monism, from the earliest times, to insist on the unity of things in time (their freedom from change) or in space (their indivisibilty) or in quality (their undifferentiatedness). Such a view of the world is already found in a developed form in the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides and was nicknamed the "block universe" (by Thomas Davidson, a friend of William James)...

• Huneker, J. (1913). The Pathos of Distance: A Book of a Thousand and One Moments. C.Scribner's sons. p. 363. LCCN 13010641. "The pluralistic world," continues James, "is thus more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom." Monism, on the other hand, believes in the block universe, in a timeless, changeless condition; "all things interpenetrate and telescope together in the great total conflux." ... Francis Herbert Bradley of Oxford, with his Appearance and Reality, is the man upon whom James trains his heaviest artillery.

• Schlosshauer, M. (2011). Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews. The Frontiers Collection. Springer. p. 125. ISBN 9783642208799. I would rathr say that quantum mechanics on a QBist reading appears to imply an irreducible pluralism to nature. Nature is composed of entities, each with a fire of its own--something not fueled or determined by any of nature's other parts. The philosopher William James coined the terms "multiverse" and "pluriverse" to capture this idea and put it into contrast with the idea of a single, monistic block universe. Unfortunately, the Everettians have co-opted "multiverse"...

• Layzer, D. (1991). Cosmogenesis: The Growth of Order in the Universe. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 309. ISBN 9780195069082. LCCN lc88012530. The phrase "block universe" was used by William James, A Pluralistic Universe (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 140. James refers to "the block- universe eternal and without a history."

• Kern, S. (2003). The Culture of Time and Space, 1880-1918: With a New Preface. Harvard University Press. p. 204. ISBN 9780674021693. LCCN 2003056635. In the 1880s, when Bergson and James began to argue that mental life was a flux with no sharp conceptual or operational boundaries, one of their targets was this kind of ossified faculty psychology. Another was Francis Herbert Bradley's monism. James spearheaded the attack on Bradley's dismissal of time and change as mere appearances and on the "block universe" of his rigid systematic philosophy. For James only the diversity and movement of experience was real.

• Jammer, M. (2011). Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. Princeton University Press. pp. 160–161. ISBN 9780691102979. LCCN 99024124. Indeed, the relativity of temporal order has been invoked to resolve certain theological problems as shown below. Another aspect of time, which has been used for the same purpose, is its relativistic conception as a coordinate in Minkowski's four-dimensional space-time, at least when the latter has been interpreted--as, for example, by Hermann Weyl--as a "block universe." As Weyl phrased it, "the objective world simply is, it does not happen..." In other words, the relations "earlier," "simultaneous with," and "later" are merely geometrical relations in the static four-dimensional space-time, and the terms "past," "present," and "future" have no objective reality. Whether the idea of a "block universe" is a logical consequence of the theory of relativity, or even only compatible with it, is not our present concern. It should be clear, however, that such a conception of the universe would seriously conflict with the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, which assigns to time a very active role in history.

• Nahin, P.J. (2011). Time Travel: A Writer's Guide to the Real Science of Plausible Time Travel. Time Travel. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 89. ISBN 9781421400822. LCCN 2010938406. The origin of the specific term block universe is generally cited to be the Oxford philosopher Francis Herbert Bradley (1846-1924), who in his 1883 book Principles of Logic wrote: "We seem to think that we site in a boat, and carried down the stream of time, and that on the bank there is a row of houses with numbers on the doors. And we get out of the boat, and knock at the door of number 19, and, re-entering the boat, then suddenly find ourselves opposite 20, and, having done the same, we go on to 21. And, all this while, the firm fixed row of the past and future stretches in a block behind us, and before us." The house numbers would seem to be Bradley's way of referring to the centuries. Notice that this statement was written twelve years before The Time Machine, and it preceded Minkowski by a quarter-century.

• Jammer, M. (2011). Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. Princeton University Press. p. 181. ISBN 9780691102979. LCCN 99024124. In short, the relativity of simultaneity has been applied to save libertarianism as a fundamental tenet of traditional religion and morality. In a much discussed article from 1966, Cornelis Willem Rietdijk claimed that, contrariwise, the relativity of simultaneity implies strict determinism and therefore necessitarianism, the denial of free will. Strictly speaking, this claim is much older, for it is part of the interpretation of space-time as a "block universe;" a term that was used as early as 1883 by the dialectical metaphysician Francis Herbert Bradley to denote the detemporalization of physical reality. Not only Herman Weyl, whose characterization of the "block universe" was cited earlier, but also our other philosophers and scientists, including Ernst Cassirer and, most eloquently, James Hopwood Jeans, expresses the idea that the theory of relativity implies strict determinism, the concept of the world as a "block universe," and the denial of free will, because clearly the Parmenidean doctrine that there is no "becoming" but only "being" requires that free will is at best an illusion.

• McHenry, L.B. (1992). Whitehead and Bradley: A Comparative Analysis. Suny Series in Systematic Philosophy. State University of New York Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780791409169. LCCN lc91012725. Although [Whitehead] is greatly indebted to Bradley's concept of 'feeling' as an "implicit repudiation of the doctrine of 'vacuous actuality'" his disagreements focus primarily on various problems of accepting the Absolute as the final transcendent Reality. He frequently referred to this position as the "block universe" devoid of process. This what he means he says that: "if this cosmology be deemed successful, it becomes natural at this point to ask whether the type of thought involved be not a transformation of some main doctrines of Absolute Idealism onto a realistic basis."

• Nahin, P.J. (2011). Time Travel: A Writer's Guide to the Real Science of Plausible Time Travel. Time Travel. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 92. ISBN 9781421400822. LCCN 2010938406. Hermann Weyl (1885-1955), a German mathematical physicist who in his last years was a colleague of Einstein and Godel at the Insitute for Advanced Study in Princeton, expressed this view (in his 1949 book Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science) in words that have since become famous:

The objective world simply is, it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line of my body [Minkowski's world-line], does a section of the world [i.e., space-time] come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time [i.e., the now or present]."

Now, after reading that, recall [H.G.Well's] time traveler's speech to his friends:

There is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along it...here is a portrait of a man at eight years old, another at fifteen, another at seventeen, another at twenty-three, and so on. All these are evidently sections, as it were. Three-Dimensional representations of his Four-Dimensional being, which is a fixed and unalterable thing [my emphasis]."

This was written, remember, in 1895, thirteen years before Minkowski and his world-lines, and of course decades before Weyl's famous quote.

The block universe concept appeared very early in pulp science fiction. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 296 (help)

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did ask you almost from the start if you could provide any sources other than Carroll for the claim that "block universe" sometimes has a different meaning than "eternalism", but you always refused my request; a lot of time might have been saved if you had done this earlier. I think some of these sources are not clearly using "block universe" to mean anything other than "all times are equally real", but are simply using analogies to make the idea more concrete; for example, "the world is like a film strip: the photographs are already there and are merely being exhibited to us" and Bradley's metaphor of our moving on a boat past houses representing different times, with "the firm fixed row of the past and future stretches in a block behind us, and before us" (i.e. all the members of the row are equally real and fixed). And Jammer's quote about relativity being "interpreted" to imply a "block universe" does not clearly indicate that he thinks the concept of "block universe" itself involves relativistic ideas like a four-dimensional spacetime manifold. William James is a good candidate for a philosopher using "block universe" differently, though--he was criticizing a type of monism in which every particular part of reality is completely determined by its relationships with other parts of reality, which goes beyond the eternalist claim that future events "exist" (to qualify as an eternalist, one does not necessarily have to believe that future facts are completely determined by other events in their past or by metaphysical necessities). It's not clear whether James was saying that this type of monism implies a "block universe" in the more limited sense of future events already being "out there", or whether he was using "block universe" to refer to this sense in which future events are determined. Do you know of any contemporary philosophers who use "block universe" in a way that suggest they mean some type of determinism as well as the idea of past and future events being just as real as present ones? If not, we might consider something like "also known as the block time view by modern philosophers", but with a footnote that historically some philosophers like James used the term differently (and I'll try to find a source that states more clearly if James meant "block universe" to imply determinism). Hypnosifl (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, no time would have been saved... WP:OR there's nothing wrong with the current text: "sometimes called". See WP:LEDE.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about my original edit constituted "original research", since the sources I gave did support the claim that eternalism is "also known" as the block universe view. If someone provides reliable sources for a claim, it's not their responsibility to make sure that the claim is universally agreed upon by all professionals in the field; other editors can provide sources that show that other professionals disagree, as I asked you to do all along. Your new research above did provide a strong indication that some sources do define "block universe" differently, and although I wasn't convinced they were definitive, when I did a little more looking for quotes by/about philosophers who disputed the monists like James and Whitehead I did find a source (see below) that very clearly uses "block universe" in a way that includes determinism. If you had done similar research earlier in our debate, I imagine the same thing would have happened, so quite a lot of time and energy would have been saved. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't refer to your original edit.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I thought when you you put WP:OR next to "there's nothing wrong with the current text", you meant that my proposed modifications to the current text (i.e., "also known as") were original research. If that's not it, what does the accusation of WP:OR refer to? Hypnosifl (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

“‘Non-presentism’ is an umbrella term that covers several different, more specific versions of the view. One version of Non-presentism is Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. According to Eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist right now, even though they are not currently present. We may not be able to see them at the moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves in right now, but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/ see also http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the relevance of this one? It doesn't use the term "block universe", and its definition of "eternalism" is the same as the one in my edits of the lede. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It differs from the definition you give #above. Let's give Writ Keeper a chance to focus the discussion.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My definition directly above for block universe/eternalism was "all times are equally real", that seems to me to be no different from "objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects". But you're right that this is a bit of a sidetrack; perhaps you could comment on my latest proposed edit at the bottom of the page, or we can wait for Writ Keeper to comment. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You said: “to qualify as an eternalist, one does not necessarily have to believe that future facts are completely determined by other events in their past or by metaphysical necessities”—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in that quote says or implies that "future facts are completely determined by other events in their past or by metaphysical necessities", it just says that they already exist, so it doesn't contradict what I said. As an analogy, if you find a long sequence of numbers on a scroll of paper, naturally you believe that later numbers in the sequence already exist when you look at earlier ones, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean that the numbers were generated by a rule that meant later numbers were determined by earlier ones (so that if you knew the rule, you could predict later numbers before actually unrolling the scroll and looking at them, just by seeing earlier parts of the sequence). The sequence could be completely random, for example. Eternalism is usually understood to be compatible with the idea that there is a similar randomness to events in history, so eternalism shouldn't be conflated with determinism--that's what one of the quotes I provided at the beginning was saying, 'It does not help, either, that there is a tendency to conflate eternalism — the four-dimensional "block universe" view — with causal determinism.' (source) Hypnosifl (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am not sure that William James ever used the specific phrase "block universe"--the closest quote I can find is one from "The Dilemma of Determinism" where he wrote "What does determinism profess? It professes that those parts of the universe already laid down absolutely appoint and decree what the other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb... the whole is in each and every part, and welds it with the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning." However, it does seem that modern philosophers discussing the late 19th-/early 20th-century conflict between a school of monistic philosophers who saw everything as determined by its relation to the whole, like Bradley, and those who disagreed with them, like James and Dewey and Whitehead and Russell, do use "block universe" in a way that includes the concept of determinism, as on p. 180 of Alfred North Whitehead: Essays on His Philosophy, where George Louis Kline writes of "the Block universe view described thus by Russell: 'There are such invariable relations between different events at the same or different times that, given the state of the whole universe throughout any finite time, however short, every previous and subsequent event can theoretically be determined as a function of the given events during that time.'" So Kline at least is using "block universe" to mean something more than the view that all times are equally real. The fact remains that many philosophers define "block universe" to mean nothing more than this, so I would propose something like "also called the 'block universe' view by many philosophers [with references I gave], although some define 'block universe' to include additional concepts like the future being determined by the past [with a reference to Kline and any others who unambiguously define 'block universe' to mean something more]". Would that be acceptable? Hypnosifl (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the fact that one of your sources directly quoted James using "block-universe", in A Pluralistic Universe. Later in the lecture there is another quote where he seems to be including in the term some sort of monistic idea of the universe being a "rationalistic" whole where none of the parts make sense except in relation to the whole: "Here, then, you have the plain alternative, and the full mystery of the difference between pluralism and monism, as clearly as I can set it forth on this occasion. It packs up into a nutshell:—Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?" Hypnosifl (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEDE.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 18:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence I proposed is still rather brief, and I think clear definition of terms is important in philosophy. But an alternate suggestion I'd be happy with would be to keep the "sometimes called" in the lede, then add a footnote which says something like "many philosophers use "eternalism" and "block universe" interchangeably", followed by the references I provided, "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts such as determinism", followed by the Kline references and any others (edit: including the James reference, see above) that unambiguously show the author defining "block universe" to mean something more than just the view that all times are equally real. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Eternalism: Proposed resolution

I've read through the above discussion. It is clear that Eternalism and Block Universe/Time are very closely related concepts. As with many philosophical concepts, their definitions are a bit vague, and perhaps vary from author to author. Some authors define them as identical, some define them in peculiar ways. But all interpretations are very, very similar. My suggestion is this:

• The article will explain to the reader that there are a variety of definitions/interpretations of the terms Eternalism, Block Universe, and Block Time.
• The article will identify (in the lead) some of the common themes in the definitions/interpretations
• The article will focus on enumerating the significant persons that defined/interpreted these terms; the article will identify the sources and give the dates of the definitions/interpretations
• The article will not assert, in the encylopedia's voice that all three terms are positively identical; However, the article will state that some (but not all) authorities consider Eternalism to be the same as Block Universe/Time

In other words: in topics like this, it is best to just present the various viewpoints of the sources, in a very factual, objective way; and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Does that sound like a good idea? --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

By way of example, there are many WP articles that objectively present multiple definitions/interpretations. For example, the Socialism article's lead states "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism." And Facism's article includes "Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism. Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow. Since the 1990s, scholars including Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have been gathering a rough consensus on the ideology's core tenets." Other articles that have a similar approach are Atheism and Anthropic principle. That is the sort of flavor I am suggesting for Eternalism. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, 100%—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there are multiple definitions of "eternalism" among modern philosophers; at least, no one has pointed to any sources that give different definitions. As for "block universe", what do you think of my proposal above, namely: 'an alternate suggestion I'd be happy with would be to keep the "sometimes called" in the lede, then add a footnote which says something like "many philosophers use "eternalism" and "block universe" interchangeably", followed by the references I provided, "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts such as determinism", followed by the Kline references and any others (edit: including the James reference, see above) that unambiguously show the author defining "block universe" to mean something more than just the view that all times are equally real.' Hypnosifl (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your thought of keeping "sometimes called" in the lede (with a footnote) is good. But I'm trying to look at the bigger picture: Rather than focus on one word in the lede ("sometimes" vs "always") I'm suggesting that throughout the entire article the tone should be "There are a variety of interpretations of these three terms; person A in 1925 said ...; person B in 1948 said ...; person D asserts that E and BU are the same; ... ". Just present the different viewpoints of the sources and avoid synthesizing in the encyclopedia's voice. --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you (or other commenters) think my proposed footnote is itself OK? As for the rest of the article, since the main focus is eternalism as a philosophy of time, and I don't think anyone has suggested that the term "eternalism" means anything other than "all times are equally real", I don't think it's needed to go into a lot of detail about other uses of "block universe" outside of sections on the history of these ideas (since these sections naturally tend to include ideas that are related to but not quite identical to the modern notion of eternalism). As far as I can tell, the only clear examples of "block universe" being used to mean something different are either by historical proponents and opponents of the type monism put forth by the British idealists in the late 19th and early 20th century (and maybe some other non-British Absolute idealists around the same time, like Josiah Royce), or by modern philosophers discussing this historical debate. If there are examples of "block universe" being used in other contexts, such that the editors can reach a consensus that the person using it is clearly using it to mean something different than "all times are equally real", those uses could be discussed too. So far I'm not convinced that any of the sources brought up to date show that "block universe" is sometimes meant to include concepts specifically from the theory of relativity, even if relativity is often interpreted to imply the view that all times are equally real, so the footnote I proposed only specifically mentions other uses related to Absolute idealism, but it leaves open the possibility that there could be "other" uses of block universe as well, so it doesn't take a definite stance on the relativity issue. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the footnote is fine. We may have a solution here: (1) use the word "sometimes" in the lead; (2) include the footnote; and (3) the article must focus on simply re-stating what the reliable sources say about the topic (if there are multiple or contradictory definitions, so be it). Is that acceptable to everyone? --Noleander (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this solution sounds good to me. Hopefully it's also OK to tweak the second part of the footnote a little to make it a little more precise; I was thinking that it could be "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts; for example, in discussions of British Idealism, 'block universe' sometimes denotes the idea that the state of every part of reality was completely determined by its relation to other parts, or to the indivisible whole." (I'm trying to come up with a summary that will encompass both the Kline quote and the James quote, since the James quote doesn't mention 'determinism', but does say 'Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?') Hypnosifl (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the multi-part footnote:

(2a) WP:OR Find at least one source that says "many philosophers use 'eternalism' and 'block universe' interchangeably" and say it in the body like normal. Do not insert OR in a footnote that says a half dozen "also called" equals "many philosophers...interchangeably". Most do not use them interchangeably. Most use one or the other, in a qualified sense.

• Kline, G.L. (1989). Alfred North Whitehead: Essays on His Philosophy. University Press of America. p. 180. ISBN 9780819172839. LCCN 89033904. [T]he Block Universe view described thus by Russell: There are such invariable relations between different events at the same or different times that, given the state of the whole universe throughout any finite time, however short, every previous and subsequent event can theoretically be determined as a function of the given events during that time.

(2b) WP:V I don't know what you mean by "the James reference" but Kline p.180 does not support "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts such as determinism" (emphasis added). Block universes are prima facie deterministic unless they're "growing block universes" or whatever. Russell's "Block Universe" is just a version of Laplace's demon: the only similarity is determinism. Russell actually calls it the law of universal causation:

• Russell, B. (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World. Open Court. p. 221.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(2a) I would say that five professional philosophers defining them in an interchangeable way ("also called", "This view is called 'the block universe theory' or 'eternalism'", etc.), several in reference works that are intended as broad views of the field rather than just their own personal views, is sufficient for "many". Are you disagreeing about the number being sufficient (if so, what number would you suggest is sufficient), or disagreeing that the sources I mention actually do define them interchangeably (Writ Keeper seemed to think they did, but if you dispute this we could try to get others' opinions), or both? I could also find many more references showing philosophers who treat the definition of "block universe" as "all times are equally real" (if you put "block universe" in quotes and do a search on google books, it seems to me that every book by a philosopher that I saw on the first few pages of this search was using the term this way), even if they don't mention the term "eternalism" (but I think you'd agree that 'eternalism' is generally defined in this way). And the only modern source you've shown that clearly assumes a different definition is one discussing the historical conflict between the British Idealists and others like Whitehead--if "most" define block universe to mean something different than eternalism, then it shouldn't be hard to find other sources that clearly give definitions which differ from "all times equally real" outside of ones discussing this particular historical debate.

(2b) "The James reference" refers to the same source by William James that you found above, which I was quoting from in my previous comment. In the "Comments by Writ Keeper" section, in my comment beginning "Sorry, I missed the fact...", I pointed to the quote from this source where James seems to most clearly define "block universe" to mean something more than just "all times equally real": '"Here, then, you have the plain alternative, and the full mystery of the difference between pluralism and monism, as clearly as I can set it forth on this occasion. It packs up into a nutshell:—Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?"' But James does not use the word "determinism" in this quote, hence my proposed modification of the second part of the footnote. The only place James mentions "determinism" in this lecture is alongside "block universe", but it is also alongside various other problems he has with monism such as "reality lapsing into appearance", so it's not clear whether determinism and the block-universe are meant to be two distinct items on the list or whether the block-universe is meant to be a synonym for "universal determinism": '"the only way to escape from the paradoxes and perplexities that a consistently thought-out monistic universe suffers from as from a species of auto-intoxication—the mystery of the ‘fall’ namely, of reality lapsing into appearance, truth into error, perfection into imperfection; of evil, in short; the mystery of universal determinism, of the block-universe eternal and without a history, etc."' Hypnosifl (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with: "five professional philosophers defining them in an interchangeable way", "also called", "or" or "known as"; but step away from the "etc."

How many do I think?

"interchangeably" means synonymous... It appears on this page eight times: =1= =2= =3= =4= =5= =6= =7= =8= and none of them are anywhere near Writ Keeper. You did manage to persuade him/her that they're synonymous, but I was under the impression you're willing to agree that's too simplistic?

"Broad views", Dowden... e.g. p.116 "meaning is up for grabs in the struggle to resolve the conflicts among metaphysical assumptions, intuitions, meanings, and scientific knowledge. A delicate balancing act..." He isn't using them "interchangeably": he is shifting back and forth from "eternalism" to "block universe theory" conversationally, as the dialogue flows from argument to argument... Naomi is certainly an eternalist, which is to say a block universe theory proponent... just bear in mind that he uses the former in the context of time travel, special relativity, relativity of simultaneity, and the ontology itself; while he uses the latter in the context of Minkowski diagrams, reality of past and future, fixed determinism (if not "causal" determinism), endure-perdure, temporal stages and the 2-D/3-D/4-D geometric utility of the "metaphor" (p.104) itself. I'd recommend Dowden p.103–116 as a reader-friendly overview, (search inside).

The prolix speculation goes off the rails after the questions, somewhere around sourcing for "block universe" as "all times are equally real" TL;DR. All this is about the word "sometimes"... and there is a two-to-one consensus among editors of the article to keep it. I decline entertaining the notion of a sprawling subtext in the footnotes in lieu of simply suggesting a different word. Please note that the entire lede does not need to be rewritten in order to modify that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You did manage to persuade him/her that they're synonymous, but I was under the impression you're willing to agree that's too simplistic?

I'm willing to agree not all philosophers define them to be synonymous, but I think the specific ones I quoted do understand them to be synonymous, and I think Writ Keeper agreed that this was the natural way to parse the references I gave. I think it's over-literal to demand that the words in the wiki article precisely match the words in the reference, so that if a reference says something like 'this view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism”', we aren't allowed to parse this and summarize with something like "considers them interchangeable" or "considers them to be different terms for the same view".

Likewise, by putting a "citation needed" after "many", are you suggesting that I need to find a source that literally says that "many" philosophers use the terms in such-and-such a way in order to include that word in the wiki summary? If so I also don't agree with this degree of literalness. And it's unclear what a single source saying "many" would prove to you anyway--unless the author has actually done a detailed poll of others in the field, the use of a word like "many", "most", "commonly" etc. would only indicate that this was the author's impression about how the terms were commonly used from the author's own reading of the literature. Some judgment by wiki editors is required for deciding what are "common" uses of the terms, how "many" define them, etc.; if a large number of reliable sources from professionals in the field are found using the word a certain way, editors can judge that words like "common" and "many" are reasonable. if you google the words "many" and "argue" (or "many" and "scientists", "many" and "philosophers", etc.) along with the restriction "site:en.wikipedia.org", I think very few wiki articles which say that "many" argue such-and-such a position actually offer a cite to a source that literally uses the word "many", usually it's just a question of the editors finding this summary reasonable because the argument is considered a mainstream one that a large number of reliable sources make.

Another proposal for the wording choice here would be for the main article to say Eternalism, commonly defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, followed by a footnote showing that "eternalism" is in fact defined this way by many philosophers, is sometimes called the "block universe" theory, followed by a footnote whose first part says The "block universe" theory is also defined by many philosophers as the view that all times have the same ontological status, followed by the references I gave and then a whole lot more references which define "block universe" this way but don't necessarily mention the term "eternalism".

Also, you didn't clarify if you still object to my proposal for the second part of the footnote (though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts; for example, in discussions of British Idealism, 'block universe' sometimes denotes the idea that the state of every part of reality was completely determined by its relation to other parts, or to the indivisible whole) now that I showed you which James source I was referring to, and pointed out that he didn't clearly indicate whether "determinism" was meant to by synonymous with "block universe or just another related issue he had with the monistic view.

The Dowden dialogue you mention between "Naomi" and "John" does not indicate any difference in the basic definitions of "block universe" and "eternalism" (precise definitions aren't even offered in the dialogue). You may be correct that each is more likely to be used in certain contexts, but a difference in the mental associations two terms bring to mind, the mental imagery they tend to call forth and such, does not indicate a difference in their technical definitions for philosophers. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS waste of time, case closed.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the situation has been resolved; I still want to add a footnote along the lines of my various proposals, and you would presumably revert any of my suggestions. Could we get some input from others on the following questions?

(1) Does a phrase like "many philosophers" require a cite to a source that actually uses the word "many" or a synonym, or is it sufficient to find a decent number of cites to philosophers offering a particular definition, especially ones from reference works from mainstream publishers that are meant to serve as general guides to the subject? My impression from many other wikipedia articles was that a loose phrase like this was OK as long as there were at least some mainstream sources to support it, and presumably a consensus among editors that this was a reasonably common view in the field.

(2) Beyond the "many" issue, are there any other objections to following proposal for an edit: have the main article say Eternalism, commonly defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, followed by a footnote showing that "eternalism" is in fact defined this way by many philosophers, is sometimes called the "block universe" theory, followed by a footnote whose first part says The "block universe" theory is also defined by many philosophers as the view that all times have the same ontological status, followed by the references I gave and then a whole lot more references which define "block universe" this way but don't necessarily mention the term "eternalism".

Then, the second part of the footnote could say though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts; for example, in discussions of British Idealism, 'block universe' sometimes denotes the idea that the state of every part of reality was completely determined by its relation to other parts, or to the indivisible whole. (I'm trying to come up with a summary that will encompass both the Kline quote and the James quote, since the James quote doesn't mention 'determinism', but does say 'Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?') Hypnosifl (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Allisgod on 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Pantheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Allisgod (talk · contribs)
• naturalistic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Basically, the president of an environmentalist donation based website that calls itself "The World Pantheist Movement" has been trying to control the page on Pantheism and promote his organization (and book) and their New Age atheistic view of pantheism he has himself termed "naturalistic pantheism". I have attempted to compromise with him in the past but have failed and it has turned into an edit war. I have made edits that make the page more neutral and beneficial for Wikipedia readers but on a daily basis he undos my edits and accuses me of being biased - but my bias is simply toward a regular historical view of pantheism which includes all sides.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many many discussions. The pantheism talk page along with the Classical pantheism talk page is filled with our discussions

How do you think we can help?

Please be the judge on whether or not this individual is self promoting himself and his internet group and forcing his one sided views on the pantheism page.

Opening comments by naturalistic

If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism especially sections 33 and 34 you will see that I have repeatedly asked Allisgod to cooperate, instead of which he has simply engaged in invective against me. Since he is in fact unwilling to have any discussion about cooperation in the usual place, I guess it moves here. I hope you will convince him that cooperation is the best approach. You can see from his description of the World Pantheist Movement (in "Dispute Overview") the extent of his bias.

I have been involved in editing the Pantheism entry since around 2009. I am Dr Paul Harrison, author of the most widely read book on pantheism: Elements of Pantheism and the Pantheist information website http://www.pantheism.net/paul which is the largest collection of information about Pantheism on the Internet. I am a world expert on Pantheism. I have repeatedly explained that my "agenda" at the Pantheism article is to ensure neutrality (all forms of Pantheism get equal prominence and none are favored). Also accuracy and absence of original research (OR) or Point of View material (POV). Naturalistic Pantheism (the version I favor) does not get any better treatment than any other form. The World Pantheist Movement of which I am president is mentioned because it is by far the largest pantheist organization in the world.

Allisgod arrived a couple of months ago and immediately began making radical changes. Allisgod began by including a great deal of OR and POV material. Now he knows the ropes he sources his material, but he still has a clear agenda which he admitted explicitly, which involves pushing certain key figures and forms of pantheism. His view is not at all neutral, he has been heavily pushing so-called "Classical Pantheism" and determinism and he openly admits this here: Yes, my "agenda" is promoting Baruch Spinoza, world famous philosopher from which the word pantheism was used to describe his philosophy; Charles Hartshorne, the only world renowned philosopher that discussed pantheism in depth; Determinism, the monist viewpoint associated to pantheism by many texts and major philosophers. And your agenda is the "World Pantheist Movement", an internet donation based environmentalist group started in 1999. Hmmm.. the "agenda" of Spinoza, Hartshorne, Determinism, Classical Pantheism versus the agenda of a president of a donation based website. (Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)) We do not know what vested interests Allisgod has but has has here declared his bias and his intention to edit the page in accordance with his bias.

Far from controlling the page I have in fact accepted many of Alligod's changes such as including in the Categories sections "Determinism or Indeterminism" and "Theistic or Atheistic", removing an image of the World Pantheist Movement symbol (which was not inserted by me in the first place) and moving the "God" table to the top.

None of Alligod's contributions to the Talk: Pantheism page have been aimed at resolving anything whatsoever, rather he has simply engaged in accusations against me. I have requested cooperation and mutual respect and he has never responded.

I believe that you should advise Allisgod to respond positively to my repeated suggestions of cooperation and mutual respect. A few weeks ago we had arrived at a version that both of us left alone for several weeks - I assumed that version was acceptable. We had also arrived (or so I thought) at a more rational and cooperative approach to editing. But in the last couple of days Allisgod has reverted to his original approach of non-cooperation and personal attacks.

Pantheism discussion

NOTE to participants: Here at DRN please comment only on the content of the ariticle. Please refrain from discussing the other editor's behavior. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod: Can you clarify the issues a bit? (1) You say that user Naturalistic is attempting to add material regarding "naturalistic pantheism". Are you suggesting that NP is not a notable concept, or that there are insufficient sources to justify its inclusion? (2) Can you provide a few "diffs" (article history deltas) that illustrate the sort of additions to the article that you object to? (3) Is it correct to say that you wouldn't object to some mention of naturalistic pantheism, but you just want it limited to a modern context? (4) You suggest that a book is being improperly promoted. Which book? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that the naturalistic pantheism article has virtually no citations; and the few it does have are to http://www.pantheism.net/ which is the site of World Pantheism Movement (WPM). --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

1) I have seen the phrase "Naturalistic pantheism" used in texts, however the meanings have varied. Various individuals, in an effort to distinguish their version of pantheism with the more traditional versions inspired by Spinoza, have used the phrase. Whether or not it is a notable concept in itself, I am not sure. But I would note that "The World Pantheist Movement" has its own very specific idea of what "Naturalistic Pantheism" means to them, which they originally termed "Scientific Pantheism" (the latter phrase is probably not a notable concept and was invented by the user). I haven't attempted to edit the Naturalistic pantheism page.

2) The recent 3 edits on August 3 2012 by user naturalistic are what brought me here for some help. The differences between versions may look minor for some, but they are not minor to a student of philosophy. User naturalistic attempts to remove or diminish certain concepts bound to Pantheism. Those concepts include Baruch Spinoza, God, and Classical Pantheism (and related concepts). I will address these individually:

-Baruch Spinoza is the name mentioned most often in any scholarly text regarding Pantheism. That's because the term was invented and popularized by two individuals (Joseph Raphson and John Toland) who were inspired by Spinoza's philosophical work, Ethics. Toland (and others) used the word Spinozist and Pantheist interchangeably. Spinoza was a determinist who used the word God to describe everything (every substance and event of the Universe).

-God is a word discouraged by user naturalistic's version of "Naturalistic pantheism" and "The World Pantheist Movement". As such, he clearly removes and edits out the word God in the Pantheism article and any related words, or he adds significant qualifiers to the word.

-User naturalistic and I had an extensive debate about the "Varieties" section of the article. He had in the past deleted the article on Classical Pantheism section saying something along the lines of 'there's no such thing' and that it 'makes naturalistic pantheism look inferior'. Yet, there was no counter to "Naturalistic pantheism" on the page. In fact, the page was dominated by this naturalistic position. Classical Pantheism was a phrase used by philosopher Charles Hartshorne which he used to specifically describe the traditional deterministic pantheism of Spinoza and the Stoics. It is what is traditionally meant by the word pantheism and Hartshorne is the only major philosopher to have qualified the broad word Pantheism into a specific type.

-3) That is correct. Although I believe their form of "Naturalistic pantheism" may not be pantheism at all (Naturalism would be a better word), I am alright with the usage and the ideas limited to a modern context.

-4) My point was about a conflict of interest and explaining the motivations of the user in making persistent changes in the long term. After weeks of extensive debate, we had come up with a compromise on the varieties section, only for him to start making changes again recently on what we had exhaustively compromised on before. This suggests to me that the user is insincere in reaching a compromise due to his conflict of interest (promotion of his "Naturalistic pantheism" donation based website, which includes his book). But regardless of his motivations, he has tried to pigeonhole the word pantheism. For example, here is the intro he wants for the pantheism page:

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, or anthropomorphic god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe. The central ideas found in almost all pantheistic beliefs are the view of the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature.

My version:

Pantheism is a word derived from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God, or that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, or anthropomorphic god. As such, pantheism denotes the idea that every single thing is a part of one Being ("God") and that all forms of reality are either modes of that Being or identical with it. The central ideas found in almost all pantheistic beliefs are the view of the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature.

In my version I add 1) "It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God, or" and 2) "As such, pantheism denotes the idea that every single thing is a part of one Being ("God") and that all forms of reality are either modes of that Being or identical with it." These are well sourced, and note that both include the word "or" to leave room for his version of pantheism. He, on the other hand, attempts to limit Pantheism to mean only his version of pantheism. I find him to be an intelligent person, but some of what he has been doing in trying to redefine pantheism and/or prioritize his modern version of pantheism to be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs)

Allisgod's version of the introduction is blatantly theistic. Almost all reputable sources define Pantheism as equating the Universe with God.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My version includes both theistic and atheistic elements of pantheism, hence the word "or". User naturalistic's version only includes a strictly atheistic POV (a.k.a. "Naturalistic pantheism). I will note he also keeps removing or bringing down the "God" box from the page while most of the other pages included in the God box have this box on top. (Allisgod (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

Naturalistic: Questions for you: (1) Can you provide some sources here that demonstrate that "naturalistic pantheism" (NP) is sufficiently important to be in the pantheism article? I glanced at Google Books, and it looks like the term is indeed used frequently by somewhat major publications. Could you pick the two or three most reliable, most authorative sources (not your own) that (in your opinion) define NP and explain its significance? (2) the pantheism article has three footnotes and two external links that refer to pantheism.net. Is there any conflict of interest (see WP:COI) involved in those references? (3) Are there any more reliable/formal (book or journal) sources (not your own) that could be used for the footnotes instead of a web site? --Noleander (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are only three books in print that address Pantheism comprehensively. One of these is my own, Elements of Pantheism, which was published in 1999 and introduces and describes Naturalistic Pantheism on pages 97-99. The other two are Standing in the Light by Sharman Apt Russel and Pantheism by Michael Levine. Out of the three books Elements of Pantheism is consistently much higher in the Amazon raking of sales. On what basis would I not quote my own book?

The World Pantheist Movement website (http://www.pantheism.net) has been in existence for 13 years and is the highest ranked non-Wikipedia pantheism search result on Google AND on Bing. How can that not be notable?

I have addressed the conflict of interest issue below. Many many editors who are experts in their field have conflicts of interest - what matters is that their editing should be neutral, which mine always has been. I have not placed Naturalistic Pantheism at the top in the "Varieties" section, I have not given in extra length, I have not presented any arguments that favor it over other versions.

Alligod has a conflict of interest, in that he very strongly favors "Classical Pantheism" and has stated his intention to push it, Charles Hartshorne, Spinoza and determinism. His editing is in line with his preference. He keeps placing his preferred version Classical Pantheism at the top of the varieties section, he has kept increasing its length, and he has included arguments that determinism is a logical consequence of Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, I don't think that Allisgod is objecting to inclusion of Naturalistic Pantheism (a term widely used in the pages of the World Pantheist Movement, which is the largest pantheist organization in the world, and the first entry in any Google search for Pantheism after Wikipedia.

His claim is that I am editing the page in a biassed manner in favor of Naturalistic Pantheism. That claim is obviously false. Naturalistic Pantheism has LESS mention here (3 lines) than Taoism, Hinduism, Wicca or for that matter Allisgod's favorite, Classical or Deterministic Pantheism (4 lines).

I have always edited this page in a neutral way. Allisgod has been continually pushing his own favorite to the top of the "Varieties" section. I have not been responding by pushing my favorite to the top.

Re conflict of interest, this concept does not mean that experts in a field may not edit Wikipedia articles in that field. All types of expert have their own particular slant - what matters is that they should edit in a neutral way without letting their interest affect how they edit. I have never done so.

However, I believe that Allisgod has done so. He has clearly admitted his agenda (see above in italics) and all his edits have been aimed at pushing his agenda. We do not know whether Allisgod has a conflict of interest - I believe he does. At the very least he is known to favor one version of Pantheism and has admitted as much. However, whether he does or not, he has clearly been editing in a biased manner.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Can you please answer questions (1) and (3)? Also, please refrain from discussing Allisgod's behavior: it does not help at all. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, I don't think either Allisgod or myself have a clear idea of what Wikipedia dispute resolution does, what is its end-product? An agreed version of the entire article? Or what?

I don't understand the importance of your questions 1 and 3 since Allisgod has not complained about the inclusion of Naturalistic Pantheism. His gripe is basically an accusation against me of biassed editing - not by simply including Naturalistic Pantheism, but by favoritizing it and the World Pantheist Movement.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of DRN is summarized at the top of this page. Basically, it is a forum for mediating disputes. The goal here is not to assess the behavior of you or Allisgod. Behavior does not enter into it all all. Allisgod seems to think that (a) there is too much emphasis on NP in the article; and (b) the sources used for NP in the article are not appropriate. Those are valid concerns. As a group, we can try to address those concerns. It may be that the article is perfect now and needs no changes. I'm trying to gather some information to help me form an opinion, so could you please answer questions (1) and (3)? The answers will help me (and anyone else that wants to assist) provide some input. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as to there being too much emphasis, you have only to see what length is devoted to each version of pantheism to see that this is a false statement.

The current version is as edited (reverted) by Allisgod, so no, it is not perfect.

I will check for other sources besides the World Pantheist Movement website, however, is it not the case that the long-standing website of a prominent organization in the field is itself a notable source?

If this is Allisgod's objection I also wish to raise one of my own, which I will add to my statement, relating to his inclusion of the term Classical Pantheism. More tomorrow.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking for more sources. The WP:Reliable source guideline summarizes how WP evaluates sources. Generally, web sites are discouraged. The best sources are scholarly texts published by academic publishing houses; or peer-reviewed journals. Pantheism is a very well known philosophy, and there are numerous top quality academic sources, so there is no reason to resort to web sites. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN. This discussion is getting quite long, but from what I read of the discussion it's regarding the lede section of the article. As Noleander states, we need to focus on the best quality sources. Noelander, try using this page to see if the participants here can work towards a lede they can agree on. I've found it works well in situations like this before. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts - I've read through some sources on Pantheism in Google books, and I've read thru the latest postings from participants above, and I came up with a few suggestions:

• The WP verifiability policy requires virtually all sentences in the article to have a footnote (citation) referring to a source that supports the statement. The top priority for this article is supplying missing citations (for instance, entire sections such as Wiccans and OtherReligions have no citations at all).
• WP prefers secondary sources, which (in this case) are books written by philosophers, historians, or theologians. See. WP:RS.
• Web sites, including pantheism.net or any other web site, cannot be used as a source, because there are so many top notch scholarly books on the subject. See WP:RS. Web sites can be included only in the "external links" section.
• The book Elements of Pantheism should not be used as a source, because it is a primary source, written by an advocate of pantheism. That is not to say that viewpoints from the book cannot be in the article; but that any viewpoint must be supported by a citation to a secondary source. Any modern (20th c) developments regarding pantheism which are to be mentioned in the article must by supported by citations to secondary sources, not by citations to material written by advocates.
• The article should mention both "Natural pantheism" and "Classical pantheism" because reliable secondary sources define and use both terms. Both terms should be defined (perhaps with multiple definitions, if the sources so indicate) based on exactly what reliable secondary sources say, not what editors think they mean or what primary sources (advocates) say they mean. The article needs to use definitions of pantheism that are nearly verbatim (although not in violation of copyright) of what the top-notch academic sources say. Editors are not allowed to interpret the definitions (see WP:OR).
• The lead should be written after the body of the article (see WP:LEAD). After the body is written, then the lead is simply a synopsis of the body, which does not include any viewpoint not already in the body.
• Spinoza should be mentioned very prominently in the article, because the secondary sources mention him very prominently in connection with pantheism.
• "God" can be mentioned in the article, because the secondary sources use that word in some of their definitions. The article should, of course, explain that some definitions of pantheism involve a notion of God, and some do not.

I think if these suggestions were followed, the article would comply with WP guidelines, and the readers would be best served. Are there any concerns about these suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have serious concerns in several important respects.

1. WP:Reliable source does not say that primary sources may not be used. It says that secondary sources are preferred, but "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research" In other words, they can be used with caution. Is there any original research in the Wikipedia Pantheism article sections on Naturalistic Pantheism? No.

2. Have you read Elements of Pantheism? It is not an advocacy book at all and was commissioned by a very prominent UK religious publishing company (Element Books) as a handbook and summary of Pantheist history and practice, as part of a large series on different world religions and philosophies. It summarizes the various types of Pantheism and the teachings of many prominent pantheists, and by no means is a book advocating Naturalistic Pantheism above other types of Pantheism.

3. There is no other current book about Pantheist history and practice so to exclude it is very restrictive and does reduce the amount of information for Wikipedia readers.

4. God is mentioned in the article and I have never suggested that the word should not be used in the article.

5. Spinoza is mentioned with appropriate credit for his key role and I have never suggested that he should not be.

6. Hartshorne's writings on Pantheism can be viewed as a primary source since Harsthorne was a very active advocate of Panentheism and a critic of Pantheism and his description of Pantheism is slanted in such a way as to show that Panentheism is superior.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Elements of Pantheism: The author of the book is Paul Harrison (pantheist) who, according to their WP page, has a PhD in geography, not philosophy. He is also the founder of World Pantheist Movement, which appears to be an advocacy group promoting pantheism. Thus it is more of a primary source than a secondary source. I've never heard of the publisher Element Books, but when it comes to philosophy and theology, there is little reason to reach outside secondary sources from the academic press. WP aims for the highest standards of encyclopedic content, and there is no reason to use books by advocates as sources for articles on philosophy/theology. Maybe we could solicit some input from other WP editors from the reliable sources noticeboard. I'll post a note at the RSN and see if some editors can share their thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Book_used_in_Pantheism_article_by_leader_of_pantheism_movement asking other editors for their opinions. Note that I never said that that WP policies prohibit use of this book; but - in my opinion - it should not be used. A book by a geographer turned leader of a "movement" just doesn't seem like a solid foundation for a WP article. But, we can see what other editors think. --Noleander (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I am not a geographer, I am a freelance writer. I have three degrees, the first (Cambridge UK First Class) was in French, German and Italian studies which are highly relevant to Pantheism. Maybe you should actually look at the book to see what it's like, rather than assuming it is advocacy. I have already explained that it is NOT a book of advocacy but is a survey of the history of pantheism and current practice.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I shall just give my views, and you may organize them how you please. i'm commenting as a librarian--I have no particular interest in the subject; my comments are based on general considerations, not the specific contents of any of the works.

As a preliminary, it is not the case that everything in Wikipedia must have an inline reference. But it is reasonable to ask for one if the material is challenged. In general, a definition is the sort of material most likely to require such a reference. The general principle, for a concept like Pantheism, there will be many definitions. All of those which represent interpretations or movements for which there is a reasonable degree of notability should be included--the standard for this is that there are good independent sources discussing that interpretation or meaning or movement. Many of the available works will be by people who are committed to one particular meaning, and they must be used very carefully, for they are prone to give a definition to other interpretations that will best suit their own ideas. The best source is independent modern academic works, with the proviso that meanings in popular use may also be significant.

More specifically, I do not consider that there is any evidence that Paul Harrison is an expert on the subject or that is book is an authority or even a reliable source. It is published by a specialized esoteric publisher whose list of publications is not encouraging [11], though at least some of the authors e.g. Arthur Versluis, have in fact works on their subject published by good publishers--having published a work with them does not alone make a writer unreliable. Having works on the subject published only by them is another matter. Harrison is a notable author, but that does not mean that all of his works are notable; I would certainly accept his works on geography as RSs in the field. This work is held by only 55 libraries in WorldCat [12]. I have seen no other sources for the concept of naturalistic pantheism presented, and if the term is used once or twice by earlier writers, such as Toland, it is probably used in other meanings--& the very article on the subject admits this. I would therefore reject any definitions sourced to his works,

I don't want to complicate this discussion, but when it is finished unless I do see some sources I shall nominate the article ( naturalistic pantheism ) for deletion. On the other hand, such an AfD might in fact be the best way of handling this argument, & perhaps this discussion should be suspended until then. And I shall also propose to move Paul Harrison (pantheist)]] to Paul Harrison (geographer). He himself should have no particular voice in how he is described, because of the obvious COI. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks for your detailed input. I concur regarding the "not every sentence needs a cite ..." I was too terse when I made that pronouncement, and omitted lots of important nuance. As for the validity of the Elements of Pantheism as a RS for pantheism article, let's wait and see if any other editors have input. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User Filefoo provided input on this issue at Wikipedia:RSN#Book_used_in_Pantheism_article_by_leader_of_pantheism_movement. The following snippet is excerpted from that comment: "Given that the expectation that Pantheism be established in the context of philosophy, theology and comparative religious studies (all scholarly discourses), Harrison's works fail to meet the standard of reliability required for an opinion worth citing in Pantheism. Harrison should not be used in Pantheism, ..." but refer to that link for the full comment. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re DGG's comment above, I would request that Naturalistic Pantheism should not be nominated for deletion. A Google scholar search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" brings up 119 references. I will be drawing on some of these to improve references. A similar search for "Classical Pantheism" brings up only 48 results. Naturalistic Pantheism is the declared preference of the largest pantheist organization in the world, the World Pantheist Movement.

I don't mind whether Paul Harrison is described as a geographer or a pantheist - I would certainly agree that my publishing reputation rests on my geography books. I did not add the pantheist tag, someone else did, for disambiguation.

As you say, the "Elements of series" included some reputable authors, including also Martin Palmer (Taoism) John Snelling (Buddhism) and George Chryssides (Unitarianism). My academic record (two masters cum laude and a Cambridge Ph D) shows very clearly that by and large I can tackle almost any non-scientific subject extremely well. My geography books range from Inner City poverty and African agriculture, to world population and environment issues.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In order to keep this DRN case focused, lets ignore Naturalistic Pantheism here. If someone starts an deletion process on the article, that will be a separate matter. Likewise, this DRN is better off without discussing the title of article Paul Harrison (pantheist). Focusing on the pantheism article: I think we all agree that "classical pantheism" and "naturalistic pantheism" are used by secondary sources, and can be mentioned in the article. The important issue we need closure on is whether Elements of Pantheism can be used as a source. So far, a few uninvolved editors have said "no", but let's wait a bit longer to see if there is more input. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm a DRN volunteer, I'm going to weigh in as an editor rather than as a volunteer due to a COI - my own religious views are at least partially pantheistic. I suggest that Harrison's book can be treated as semi-reliable; that is, it's fine as an additional reference for a piece of info, or for completely uncontroversial material, but should not be used as the only source for anything remotely controversial. I haven't read Elements of Pantheism in full, but I have read excerpts, and it seems to me that it's a little POV-heavy but accurate if you can get past the POV. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@Jorgath: In light of the WP:PRIMARY guideline: Are you suggesting that the book can be used for any non-controversial facts about pantheism (e.g. history of pantheism in 18th and 19th centuries, how pantheism fits within theological frameworks, whether or not Einstein was a pantheist, etc); or are you saying the book's use should be limited to facts about the modern movement's own viewpoints (e.g. "The founder of the World Pantheist Movement, in his book Elements of Pantheism, defined a new naturalistic approach ...")? --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere between the two. The latter stuff definitely can be used. The former, only for things that are completely uncontroversial. Essentially, I think it can be used for any fact about pantheism that is not contradicted by a more reliable source, and it can be used for any fact about the modern movement's viewpoints. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Jorgath. Just to assist in this discussion and make it less theoretical I have uploaded the sections of Elements of Pantheism that are uncontroversial and more or less free of POV here: http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%of%PantheismReliableSourceMaterial.pdf I am suggesting that pages visually numbered 17 to 38 (history) and 87-91 (categories) are non-POV and can be used for factual references. Noleander, you can see for yourself whether this is controversial or biassed in any way.

The rest, as Jorgath suggests, could be used for facts about the World Pantheist Movement's or Paul Harrison's beliefs or practices.

The whole book is also here: http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%20of%20Pantheism.pdf including sources.

Please note that the whole purpose of the commissioning of the book was to provide a source that would be of use to all types of pantheists, not just to one type.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see the circularity problem with arguing that your own work is reliable? Can you give us some evidence that other people who have objectively demonstrable expertise in the field, such as a doctorate in religion or philosophy, think it reliable? DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do see it as a prima facie impression. However I have a whole life history of summa cum laude degrees in three different fields, accurate and highly regarded writing that has won me two international awards, and high-level UN editing work of flagship UN reports and international commissions - see my Wikipedia page Paul Harrison (pantheist) and resume site http://www.paul-harrison.com. All of the above, which can be independently verified, testifies to a deep and effective lifetime commitment to accuracy, as well as an ability to write about very diverse subjects at the same level of reliability. I have never had any other aim in view in my involvement with the Wikipedia article than accuracy and neutrality. And if you just dip into the link above http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%of%PantheismReliableSourceMaterial.pdf you will see that the material is simply not controversial in any way, there is no slant in the coverage of individual pantheists nor in the categorization of types of pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DGG, re your question of others using my book as source, here's some from a very cursory search

the Stanford Encyclopedia or Philosophy entry on Pantheism by philosophy Ph D Michael Levine has it as a reference - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Here's a citation from Zygon, an academic journal of science and religion:

Religious naturalism and naturalizing morality U Goodenough - Zygon®, 2003 - Wiley Online Library ... 2001. “Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence.” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (December): 585–95. Harrison, Paul. 1999. Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe. London: Element.

Here's another from the Encyclopedia of Christianity: The Encyclopedia Of Christianity: Volume 4 Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley - 2005 - 952 pages P. HARRISON, The Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe (Boston, 1999)--Naturalistic (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

PS Re the challenge to the concept naturalistic pantheism from editor Allisgod who favors the concept of classical pantheism, I did a Google Books and Google scholar search for these two terms (as phrases), results as follows:

Google Scholar: Naturalistic Pantheism: 119 results. Classical Pantheism: 48 results

Google Books: Naturalistic Pantheism: 1,690 results. Classical Pantheism: 367 results.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading the book, Elements of Pantheism. From start to finish it is a collection of rigid opinions mixed in with some facts by a person who obviously has no background in philosophy. The author writes: "[Pantheism] does not say whether it [life] is determined in advance - or undetermined." Pantheism "does not say" ? Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of philosophy can see the flaw in a sentence like that (not to mention the complete brushing off of Spinoza's philosophy). There are many examples throughout the book like that. And to say it does not have a bias in certain sections is wrong. The entire narrative works its way toward support of its own very specific POV and toward environmentalism and naturalism. Of course it has a significant bias.

Furthermore, it's not about 'favoring' classical pantheism. It is about correctly representing pantheism. For the most part, Classical pantheism is just a phrase used for what is traditionally meant by the word pantheism. "Naturalistic pantheism" includes the naturalism qualifier. It is a newly invented concept. It's been a real disservice to Wikipedia readers that the pantheism page has been dominated by the "naturalistic" position and all kinds of advertising for the "World Pantheist Movement". Even today, some brand new username tried to add back the "World Pantheist Movement" logo as the main picture of the page. I've examined the history of the page and others have come and gone trying to fix the page to represent a more neutral view of pantheism, only to be bullied away (by a person who seems to be working full time to defend a slanted view of the subject). That is why I came here seeking help. (Allisgod (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

For other sources about variants on the subject in general rather than the modern movement in particular, may I suggest The Body of God: An Ecological Theology by Dr. Sallie McFague (ISBN-10 0800627350). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources? - Here are a few statements from the article that are sourced to the Elements book. Can someone provide a another source (secondary, reliable) for each of these statements?

1. "In the late 20th century, pantheism began to see a resurgence."
2. "the term 'Pantheism' did not exist before the 17th century, "
3. "various pre-Christian religions and philosophies can be regarded as pantheistic. They include some of the Presocratics, such as Heraclitus and Anaximander."
4. "The Stoics were Pantheists ...."

If we could see confirmation of these statements from independent, academic reliable sources, that would bring some clarity to this discussion. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't access most of my collection right now (they're in boxes while I get my wall fixed from water damage), but I might do some JSTOR-ing in the next day or two if no one beats me to it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

2, 3 and 4 are verifiable statements. Plumptre's General sketch of the history of pantheism from 1878 can verify those. However #1 is likely just POV. (Allisgod (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

"Plumptre's General sketch of the history of pantheism from 1878" does not sound like a good source. People still believed in aether and phrenology back then. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

From my own knowledge, 1 is true-ish. I'm not sure whether I'd say the late 20th century, or even the 20th century (I read something somewhere about late 19th-century interest in the idea, but I don't rememeber where), but it definitely had a resurgence of "classical" pantheism and a surgence of naturalistic pantheism somewhere in that expanded timeframe. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

2 appears to be true, although we can probably go later. "First used by John Toland in 1705, the term 'pantheist' designates one who holds both that everything there is constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine." (Ted Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, OUP, 1995, p.641). Formerip (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we would need extremely strong sourcing for statements that people in the ancient world were pantheists. It may be appropriate, but it may also be anachronistic, like claiming Cleopatra as a feminist, Phaleas of Chalcedon as a communist or Jesus as a celebrity chef. Instead, we might consider comparing and contrasting old belief systems with new, if appropriate. It certainly seems unlikely that the Stoics can be considered pantheists, unless we mean to say that they tended to believe in the Greek pantheon. That said, the source I cited above does class Spinoza (17th century) as a pantheist. Formerip (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

1 is verifiable from the sourced contents of the article, including the founding, in 1975, of the Universal Pantheist Society - the first pantheist organization using the word pantheist in the title, and in 1999 of the World Pantheist Movement, which became the biggest pantheist organization in the world. The Pope saw fit to denounce Naturalistic Pantheism twice in major statements in 2010. All this is documented in the Pantheism article. The expression used is REsurgence. As the article describes, Pantheism had been very prominent in the 19th century but much less so in the first half of the 20th century.

2. It's impossible to prove that the term pantheism did not exist before the 17th century, but no mentions have been found before Joseph Raphson (see Pantheism article.

3 and 4. There are tons of sources classifying Stoicism and several presocratics as pantheistic - no problem in substituting these sources for Elements of Pantheism. It's perfectly valid to attribute the name pantheism to beliefs that existed before the word was invented, just as it would be to call certain ancient philosophies physicalist, or dualist, or monist etc before these terms were invented.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but let me underline: extremely strong sourcing. Formerip (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Naturalistic: Perhaps I was not clear. I was attempting to evaluate the Elements source by seeing if it was corroborated by other sources. Can you name some other secondary sources, preferably academic, which justify those four statements from Elements? [Someone provided a good source for item #2, so maybe you could focus on #1, #3, and #4]. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the DRN can be closed now. It looks like the remaining open issue is finding reliable sources to corroborate/reinforce the material that is currently sourced to the Elements of Pantheism book. There are about a dozen examples of such material, and they have to be dealt with one by one; and that is not an ideal function of this DRN case. I'll enumerate the material in the article's Talk page, and I'll make an effort to find some sources. If anyone wants to keep the case open, please provide some rationale. --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Turkey

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 178.223.212.72 on 23:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Religion in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:Prefixindex/Religion in

Users involved

• making the "religiosity", "irreligion", statistics, names, and bar chart changes:
  • 178.223.212.72 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 178.223.119.212 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 217.65.192.104 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 109.93.148.134 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 109.93.89.159 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 178.223.198.96 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 93.86.142.33 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 91.150.100.10 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 109.93.150.150 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 178.223.199.235 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 91.150.100.10 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 178.223.123.111 (talk · contribs) a.k.a 77.46.182.116 (talk · contribs), a.k.a. 93.87.210.14 (talk · contribs) a.k.a. 178.223.204.153 (talk · contribs)
• reverting, others, etc:
  • Saguamundi (talk · contribs) (Religion in Turkey)
  • Poeticbent (talk · contribs) (Religion in Poland)
  • Erp (talk · contribs) (Religion in Norway)
  • Tahc (talk · contribs) (Religion in Norway)
  • Sabrebd (talk · contribs) (Religion in Scotland)

Dispute overview

Well, for starters, the article presents the KONDA reasearch which states 2.3% agnostics and 0.9% atheists. In the nature of other Religion in Europe articles (all articles use irreligion; not that I'm the fan of the WP:OSE), I asked that those be incorporated into the 3.2% irreligious. However, not only that my proposal was left undiscussed on the talk page, but Saguamundi also requested the article's protection. So, not that it's only content dispute, it's also user conduct dispute (for not discussing and practically using WP:OWN). Please, help us resolve these disputes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit warring (wasn't the best idea), temporally full protection (didn't help), discussion on talk page (Saguamundi didn't want to discuss - at all), help desk...

How do you think we can help?

Firstly, you could 'convince' Saguamundi to act properly and be a good Wikipedian discussing rather than edit warring (plus WP:OWN). Secondly, you could help me/us determine whether atheism and agnosticism should be unified as irreligion or not. Thirdly, you could find the third, compromising (and maybe creative) idea, so that everyone would be happy and satisfied.

Opening comments by Saguamundi

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Poeticbent

• First of all, I'm NOT an "involved user". So, why am I being dragged into this? All I did was to revert once a suspicious chart with no external source and numbers that did not correspond to what the article said. I requested the citation. The uploader corrected his mistake and appologized in his edit summary; I let go of it, end of story. However, KONDA Research is a private company from Turkey (not from Poland) involved only in polling and data collection. It is one of over a dozen such companies in Turkey earning a living by research in Social Sciences and Humanities.[13] I wonder why the charts are posted everywhere around (from Albania to Norway), even if the actual data isn't new or differs from the equally reliable local sources? Is there a possible COI behind this unusual push for mass inclussion of KONDA results in Wikipedia? And why is a dynamic IP doing the posting instead of a registered user? There must be a better way of doing this, without giving grief. Poeticbent talk 15:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Erp

I've also had not been involved in the Religion in Turkey article; however, I have been involved in the Religion in Norway article and was considering bringing up the problem there though I was awaiting a discussion in Talk:Religion in Norway. Namely the renaming and shoehorning of cited statistics into a bar graph which I think misleads people. The same seems to be happening in the Turkey article (with the addition that the stats however munged apparently don't seem to come from the given reference). As an aside I find irreligion as a term inappropriate and vague for what is included under it; it is too strong a word to apply to the merely non-religious. It is not used very much as far as I can see in modern scholarly research and most of those uses are for specific historical periods when the term was in use. The Library of Congress has a sum total of at most 67 works classified as being about 'irreligion' (the search would also find use in notes or title) which means their definition of it must be quite narrow and far narrower than its current use in Wikipedia. --Erp (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Tahc

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Sabrebd

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Religion in Turkey discussion

Pre-discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I will wait for the other party to comment. Page protection is never the solution to a dispute, and atheism is different than irreligion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As for usage of irreligion difinition (three are present), Serbia - rejection of religious belief (only 'atheism' was counted on 2002 census; 'agnostics', if any, had to chose between 'particular religion', 'atheism' and 'ietsism (believer without religion)'), Switzerland - all (it already was 'non-religious' linking to 'irreligion'), Scotland - rejection of religious belief & absence of religious belief (compromisely, it was left as 'no religion' linking to 'irreligion' (on the table)), Norway - all (already present as 'irreligion', just had the debate whether 'humanism' should take its own bar), Poland and Luxembourg - forgot to reference at first (maybe all definitions) and Albania - discussion nothing to do with this (see its talk page). As for Turkey, the problem was that discussion was avoided by Saguamundi (it would be all irreligion definitions). 77.46.182.116 (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and am awaiting an opening statement by Saguamundi. Electric Catfish 21:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, everybody does, but it, unfortunately, seems unlikely to happend. 77.46.182.116 (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. He does not own the article and is violating WP: 3RR, WP: OWN and WP: BRD. I'd still like to hear his take (if possible) before any action (such as a warning or block) is taken against him. Electric Catfish 21:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it could be that Sagaumundi is on vacation or maybe out of Wikipedia. Patience is a virtue. 77.46.182.116 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as there is already some chat here, I would like to interject. Agnosticism and irreligion are unrelated (see Agnostic theism). Thus uniting agnostics and atheists you get a set of people who are not necessarily irreligious; renaming atheists to irreligious you get a set of people, which is smaller then amount of irreligious. Statistics is all about it: the way the question is posed severely limits ability of data manipulation. That is why the community-wide RfCs are normally prepared for quite a lot of time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That isn't what the irreligion says. It clearly includes 'all the possibilities' (of course not agnostic theism; it's theism, so belief is present; agnostics we talk about here are agnostic atheists). You got me confused with the part of the way question is posed? This all seems lake a misunderstanding to me. Could someone write what irreligion is and what it isn't? Is article lying? Regarding the informations it contains, irreligious are - atheists, secular humanists (mostly atheists), antitheists (atheists again), anticlericalists (wide group; from atheists to SBNR), antireligionists (wide group again), apatheists, ignostics, nontheists (wide group; discluding nontheistic religions), religious skeptics, etc... However, those actually sum up almost only to atheists and (agnostic) atheists. So, is it OK to count atheists and agnostics as irreligious or not (my guess is yes)? 93.87.210.14 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that irreligion is lying, as it uses word "agnostic" in sense of "agnostic atheist". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do in that case? Nominate irreligion for speedy (kidding of course)? However, these issues must be checked, since there are some conflicting definitions (as I 'got a hold of them') that need to be adressed, so they don't cause confusion. Either way, the 'opening' comment is still pretty much needed. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Has this thread been officially opened for comments? I have some thoughts on irreligion but would prefer not to start the discussion early. --Erp (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can discuss as long as the first comment was from volounteer (already happened). The official binding/decisive part is after Saguamundi, if ever, writes his own. So, write what's on your mind ASAP. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is already here. We can either move it to some talk page or hide once opening statements by editors from the other side are here. It just doesn't make sense to avoid it any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I seem not to be able to retrieve KONDA's survey. It's present on [14], and it requires E-mail. I filled in the questionaire, but they dindn't send it to me. Interesting; I'll wait a little bit more. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sent the survey results even after 2 hours (it said it takes up to 20 minutes, so they won't send me it at all). Is it even by Wikipedia rules to use non-existent references? Please, reply or, even better, point me to page adressing issues of broken link references. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Link rot. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the link to the archived version of the report (spelling wrong date though) is also present in the references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to open it for about 10 minutes, but it doesn't seem to work. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow the link of the work's title; at least I successfully downloaded it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I know how to work with archived stuff, but it just seems not to work. Regardless, I don't doubt that archive is present for real. Also, discussion isn't the one regarding KONDA's results truth, it's about whether term irreligion should be used for atheists and (atheist) agnostics. It can;t really be further discussed without the opening comments, which seem VERY, VERY UNLIKELY to happend. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree with Poeticbent. The volounteer added all of you (who clearly have nothing to do with Religion in Turkey dispute; I actually already explained that). As for 'KONDA agenda', it could be prestent (but only in Religion in Turkey), since (read Religion in Turkey's talk and hisory pages) Saguamundi was one instisting (for several years) "stick to KONDA", "we better stick to KONDA", etc. I posted a question on help desk regarding major Wikipedia justice I experienced in these few days [15]. So, KONDA's present only in Religion in Turkey, so no 'KONDA agenda' is present. 93.86.129.66 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, filing requests on the same topic in different places is discouraged on Wikipedia. Such practice is usually referred to as "forum shopping". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That was mainly regarding the other user conduct dispute (no relations with this one). 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The first question (user misconduct)

The first question is: Is it appropriate for Saguamundi (talk · contribs) to get a warning for his misconduct and violation of WP: 3RR, WP: OWN and WP: BRD? Note: It has to be done by someone else, since I, as an IP user, can't do it myself. Answer the forementioned question (in bold) and explain your stance, please. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes since he didn't do too little for nothing, nor too much for ban. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that the DRN is only about content, not conduct. There's a note at the top of the page about that. ANI is there for user conduct. Ravensfire (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I know, but it was already mentioned by volounteer Electric Catfish, so I couldn't just ignore it. Would this one exception hurt (the system)? Please!!! This is a case for WP:IAR!!! 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as this was already previously discussed, I'll answer: no, I see no grounds for issuing any warnings. Saguamundi performed exactly 3 reverts withing 3 days, thus not breaking WP:3RR, explaining his position in edit summaries. Though it would be nice of him to actually answer your comment on the talk page, he wasn't obliged to. I see no violation of WP:OWN, and WP:BRD is an essay, so we can't emit warnings based on it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The second question (content dispute)

The second question (whose answer would close the discussion) is: Is it appropriate to use irreligion as all-in-one term in bar boxes, pie charts, etc, which would, per its definition, include atheists, agnostics (agnostic atheists), secular humanists and other belief systems which either reject, deny, or somehow else (ignosticism) dismiss belief of deities, God or life spirit? Note: It would obviously exclude non-theistic religions and belief systems containig some supernatural/faith elements (deism and agnostic theism; however, these group are least likely to be counted in any census, survey or research in reasonable percent (which wouldn't show up as 0.00%); same goes for (almost unambiguously irreligious) ignosticims). Answer the forementioned question (in bold) and explain your stance, please. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes, since all the forementioned belief systems clearly state that supernatural stuff doesn't exist, that it can't be proven, and/or that it can't be concluded without the 'more specified' definition (though this is irrelevant, since ignosticism isn't to be found in any study as of today), thus effectively making the Irreligious group a valid one, which, while having some significant belief differences, implicate to the very same thing (already noted in Irreligion article/definition). Also, in case of Religion in Norway (only one including humanism), the information (which include humanism) aren't disturbed by the bar box containing only Irreligion. As it already was said, humanism isn't a religion, so only way (a great one for me) of giving it it's own bar is renaming of article to "Religious and life stances in Norway". I fully support the remaning. So, the 13.6% of Norway is irreligious from the religion point. However, from the life stance point, 12.9% are atheists, agnostics, etc, while 1.7% are humanists. Does that suit its purpose, Erp? I'll get the more stances out if needed (but at the earliest after 16:00 UTC). 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly would you derive the amount of "irreligious" in the "Religion in Turkey"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ogwikitem on 08:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Wikipedia:Help desk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ogwikitem (talk · contribs) BritishWatcher (talk · contribs) Maproom (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have recently been made aware that my image appears in this photo on Margaret Thatcher's wikipedia page - File:Lady Thatcher at dinner 2008 crop.jpg. I am very new to wikipedia and I wanted to see whether or not it could be taken down. I have explained how and why the picture exists and engaged in discussions about removing it on the article talk page - Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Incorrect and inappropriate photo and on the wikipedia help desk - Wikipedia:Help desk#My image, but there seems to be some disagreement on the matter. I would like the image to be removed because: 1. It suggests that I was/am a Conservative, which is not true (the caption initially read "Thatcher is surrounded by Young Conservatives", which can be proved to be factually incorrect and I asked to be removed). 2. It could really impede my efforts to find a job (I am just completing my masters and would like a job with a progressive organisation). 3. I have never, and would never have, consented to my image being used in this way. I realise that nobody can totally manage their image on the internet and I admire the work that wikipedia does, but this seems a little extreme. As far as I can see the range of opinions on the matter seem to be: a. 'I don't believe your story', b. 'the reasons that you have provided are not strong enough for the photo to be removed', and c. 'whatever your reasons, the photo actually detracts from the article and so should be removed'. I can, if needs be, verify my story and I think that I have provided a reasonable enough case for the photo to be removed. I also agree that the photo adds nothing to, and possibly detracts from, the article. This is not really about party politics for me; I actually have quite a nuanced view on Thatcher and, in any case, think that politics is more important than parties. It is about privacy, compromise, and unfortunate, unforeseeable consequences. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have engaged in discussions on the article talk page - Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Incorrect and inappropriate photo and the wikipedia help desk - Wikipedia:Help desk#My image. I have also contacted the Volunteer Response Team to see if this might be a personality rights issue (I was advised to do this by someone in one of the discussions). I am also thinking of contacting the Author of the image to see if he can do something. How do you think we can help? As I said, I am new to wikipedia and this is all a little overwhelming. I have tried to be reasonable all the way through this process and I just want to see a swift end to this quite surreal situation. I would like the image to be taken down. I really don't think that it adds anything at all to the article and given the the possibility of it having some quite unfortunate consequences for someone who has never sought nor intends to seek public attention, it seems unreasonable to keep it. Opening comments by BritishWatcher Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Maproom Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Margaret Thatcher discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Provisional Irish Republican Army

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by SonofSetanta on 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Provisional Irish Republican Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SonofSetanta (talk · contribs)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs)
• FergusM1970 (talk · contribs)
• Flexdream (talk · contribs)
• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs)
• Scolaire (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is the claiming of the name Óglaigh na hÉireann as the official Irish Gaelic name for the Provisional IRA. My contention, and that of others, is that the name Óglaigh na hÉireann is the official and legal title (in Irish) of the Irish Defence Forces, a state body. This is clearly indicated on their homepage at http://www.military.ie/. A search for Óglaigh na hÉireann on the Wiki confirms my assertion (and that of others) and also that various terrorist organisations have styled themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann throughout the years. I do not dispute that the Provisional IRA claimed this name as their own and believe it should be included in the article and any other articles concerning Irish terrorist groupings, that this is the case, that they "styled themselves" as Óglaigh na hÉireann. I also believe that the true Irish translation " IRA Sealadach" should be used as the Irish Gaelic translation on all pages concerning the Provisional IRA. This is not being accepted by other editors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I, and others, have made all editors aware through the talk page what the facts are and have tried to include the information in the article. This has sparked an edit war with several opposing editors.

How do you think we can help?

Dispute resolution can have some experienced and uninvolved editors review the two schools of thought and make a ruling on it which can then be treated as the concensus.

Opening comments by

FergusM1970

It seems clear that, as the name is used by PIRA, it needs to be mentioned in the article. However its present place does give it undue prominence; they're certainly not called that in Ireland, where the term is used to refer to the Irish Defence Forces and PIRA is in any case banned, and in the UK they're always referred to as PIRA or just the IRA. My suggestion would be to remove it from its current location and add an explanation of its use by PIRA elsewhere in the article.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 18:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Provisional Irish Republican Army discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! I am a dispute resolution volunteer. Before I begin, I want to make sure you understand that this process is non-binding; I can't make anyone do anything. But it seems to me that there is already a compromise solution in your opening statements and in the lede of the article. The current opening sentence says this:

• "The Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) (Irish: Óglaigh na hÉireann) is an Irish republican paramilitary organisation whose aim was to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and bring about a socialist republic within a united Ireland by force of arms and political persuasion."

And the current last sentence of the first paragraph says this:

• "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is also referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by its supporters as the Army or the 'RA;<ref> its constitution establishes it as Óglaigh na hÉireann ("The Irish Volunteers") in the Irish language."

It seems to me that if "Óglaigh na hÉireann" translates as "The Irish Volunteers," not the "Irish Republican Army," then the use in the lead sentence is misleading. But you could by all means keep it in the other sentence I copied over, the last sentence of the lead paragraph. Thoughts? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about the version of a name in a different language having a different literal meaning. From a policy and guidelines perspective, there is nothing immediately wrong with the current wording. For example, on the article North Korea, the korean wording does not mean "North Korea", or "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". The legitimacy or not of the PIRA should also not effect what it gives as it's official name. From familiarity with the topic in general, Óglaigh na hÉireann is by far the more common name amongst the sources, "IRA Sealadach" I've personally never heard of. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can one of the involved users fill in all involved users into "Users involved". Currently it just contains one user. I notice that discussions only began on the talk pages yesterday; 1 day seems far too early to bring the issue to DRN. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now included the names of the other (proposed) participants.

My contention is this: the usage of this name can be found explained at Óglaigh na hÉireann. It is absolutely clear that most Irish armed groupings, especially those claiming the name IRA (in some shape or another) claim to be the only Óglaigh na hÉireann. This is the invention of tradition in true Irish style. (see Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 1983, Cambridge University Press). The more support a particular grouping gets the more likely they are to claim the name, however: the Government of Ireland claim it for their armed forces and have done since the inception of an independent political process in Ireland. (c1916) (1st Dail for interested onlookers). It is my firm belief that the Provisional IRA article should reflect all of this and explain that their constitution claimed the name Óglaigh na hÉireann although it is not the translation for their working title in English. Explain to the reader WHY they chose this name and give links to the organisations who claim it now that the Provisional IRA is defunct. My firm opinion is that we should not allow "Invention of History" to become fact on Wikipedia and that the information we supply to readers should be accurate to degree level. In support of this I would ask participants to do a google search on Óglaigh na hÉireann and see how many pages they have to go through before finding a reference to the Provisional IRA. I ask also that the comments here [[16]] be noted. The quotes are by Martin McGuinness, the Deputy Leader of Sinn Fein (formerly Provisional Sinn Feinn). They were the political arm of the Republican Movement and McGuinness himself is a former senior member of the Provisional IRA Army Council. Even he says that PIRA only "styled" themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann and the only true holder of the name is the Irish Defence Forces (he uses the words "Irish Army"). You have it from me, you have it from the Wiki's own articles, you have it from Martin McGuinness. I put it to the discussion that the only way forward is to clarify the usage and stop trying to make it look as if it was an official, recognised title. It never was. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: @Wolfie - the discussion on the talk page has been ongoing since 19th July. Not just in the last two days. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't determine things through googling; (besides what is more of interest is the google scholar results and flick through; many of these sources demonstrates the academic usage). Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research. The legal legitimacy of the naming is irrelevant; as wikipedians we merely report what they are named as in the Irish language. From what I can see Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name for the PIRA as seen in the academic sources (I looked through google scholar). If there are other groups who also referred to as Óglaigh na hÉireann then they can be given the same name in their respective articles in the very same format. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Maafa 21

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Beleg Strongbow on 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Maafa 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Beleg Strongbow (talk · contribs)
• ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The "Reception" section of the "Maafa 21" article is under a POV dispute. Two editors claim that it is appropriate for the narrative of the article to declare that the opinions of one side of an issue have established "fact" while the opposing opinions are "false". They have even gone so far as to reject the idea that this dispute even exists and have attempted to remove the POV-section tag. A third editor and myself (being the fourth) feel that the cited opinions should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the editors inserting their own opinions. Both sides of this dispute have asserted that they desire a NPOV for the article, but we have been unable to come to an agreement as to what that actually means.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have extensively discussed the dispute within the Talk page. We have also cited Wikipedia policy.

How do you think we can help?

We could use more clarity as to the intended definitions of NPOV and Impartial tone. We could also use guidance on how to determine when it is appropriate to ignore sources or to elevate sources.

Opening comments by ClaudioSantos

Scholars' opinions should not be presented as undeniable facts. Not any piece of criticism is being removed here -as Roscelece claims and overreacts- but it solely presented those opinions precisely as a matter of opinions not as it was a matter of facts. --ClaudioSantos¿? 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Roscelese

Beleg Strongbow, a single-purpose account on this article, and ClaudioSantos, a single-purpose account dedicated to connecting Planned Parenthood with racist eugenics whose edit-warring has led to past topic bans, wish to remove the statement that the historical claims made in Maafa 21, an anti-abortion propaganda film, are not true. This statement is a summary of criticism from historical scholars, such as the editors of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, situated further down in the section. In the section, the scholars' criticism is elaborated upon: quotes used in the film are grossly taken out of context or simply made up, people's positions are stated to be the opposite of what they in fact were, etc. Nor are the film's claims that abortion is a conspiracy to commit genocide against black people supported in any other historical literature.

We would be in a different situation if Beleg or Claudio were pointing to other available research on the subject or finding valid reasons to question the scholars' expertise. But that's not the case here. Beleg and Claudio evidently fully accept that these scholars are authorities on the subject, admitting that mainstream scholarly opinion holds that the films' claims are rubbish and that the quoted scholars are authorities on the subject. Their argument, rather, is that all opinions are equally valid, whether belonging to a professor of history at a prestigious university whose chief work is reading, editing, and writing about Margaret Sanger's papers, or the man in the street, and that if a fringe minority disagrees with something, it cannot be stated as fact. This is in clear contrast to WP policy and practice as laid out at WP:FRINGE, not to mention WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Binksternet

WP:NPOV says that we should avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. There is no contest here: all of the scholars and topic experts agree that the film portrays a fraudulent history with fabrications of fact and misleading context. The only people who disagree are pro-life activists such as the filmmaker.

The problem that Beleg Strongbow presents at the article is basically his distaste for the very negative conclusions made by scholars and topic experts. Until last week his user page showed his strong position as a pro-life proponent. The scholars and topic experts who have commented on the pro-life propaganda film Maafa 21 are in full agreement that is based on lies, fabrications and misrepresentations of context. Beleg Strongbow has not put forward any new sources, or quoted new experts, he is just reacting to the reversion of his only edit in which he downplayed the very negative evaluation of scholars.

Our article about the film cannot fail to tell the reader that all the scholarly and topic expert commentary about the film characterizes it as a "distorted... dishonest propaganda" containing serious "problems with the scholarship"; it's a "shockumentary" and part of a "propaganda... smear campaign... without any factual basis."

If Beleg Strongbow would like to soften the harsh evaluation of topic experts and scholars he should find some who praise its scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Maafa 21 discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! I'm a dispute resolution volunteer. I'm awaiting a statement from ClaudioSantos before opening discussion, but I just wanted to make sure you all knew your request has been seen. That said, please do wait until I or another volunteer starts the discussion to post anything besides your statements. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm also a DRN volunteer and awaiting an opening statement from Claudio Santos. Electric Catfish 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All right, ClaudioSantos has made their statement, so we can begin. As I said before, I am a dispute resolution volunteer. This is an informal position that carries no actual authority beyond being a neutral, uninvolved person who is interested in mediating content disputes. This process is non-binding, and is only for mediating disputes over article content, not over user conduct. Since this matter is a potentially very sensitive one, I want to make sure that we're all on the same page on that aspect of this process.

To start, Binksternet's description of WP:NPOV is accurate. Just as we should not present contested opinion as uncontested fact, we should not present uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Note that for the purpose of this concept, "contested" and "uncontested" refer to the assertion's treatment by reliable sources, not to whether or not they are contested by Wikipedia editors. That said, I admire the idea of "letting the sources speak for themselves" as Beleg Strongbow puts it...but only if there are reliable sources that disagree with each other on the subject. If all reliable sources come down on one side, then coming down on the side of a different position is problematic. NPOV does not mean that we must give equal treatment to all opinions, it means that we must evaluate opinions based on their reliability, not on whether or not we agree with them. Furthermore, if all available RS come down harshly on this film, I can't imagine any way to back off of that harshness without going up against WP:WEASEL.

But all that said, there is another factor coming into play here. If ClaudioSantos or Beleg Strongbow (or anyone else) can bring in another reliable source that disagrees with the current ones, by all means we can change the weight of the wording. Likewise, if either of you, or anyone else, can provide a good reason why we should consider any of the current sources as unreliable, then change is possible. The latter will take some doing, as I don't see any of the sources currently in the article as unreliable (although some are only reliable in the ways they're currently being used). So I'd suggest going with the former. Find more sources. A good place to start might be a historian from a traditionally right-wing-Christian university (Liberty, perhaps?).

One more thing: something that very much concerns me about this whole section is the question of whether it is a good idea to have what is essentially a pros-and-cons list in the article. I'd like you all to weigh in on that question as well. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm leery of your suggestion that a user or users deliberately seek out the broadest possible definition of "scholar" in order to provide "balance." The sources should match, in quality, the scholarly sources already present - eg. Esther Katz, an expert on the topic from a prestigious and nonpartisan academic institution.

With regard to the pros and cons list, would you recommend simply collapsing the positive and negative reception subsections? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Scholars are not the only reliable sources, for one. For another, I'm not asking them to find "balance," I'm asking them to find sources. If they want to "balance" the article, they need to have sources that show why the current state is not "balanced." If they can't, then the RS support the current state. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I didn't answer you on the pro-and-con list thing. Yes, and more than that, I'd prose-ify it up more. It's in prose format right now, but I'd make it so that there's more than one reaction per paragraph, perhaps improve the section intro, etc. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it made much difference, but what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Better. It still doesn't quite flow exactly right, if you know what I mean, but at least it reads like actual paragraphs instead of a list without bullet points. Anything further on that can wait until consensus is reached on what exactly should and shouldn't be in the section. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Jorgath, thanks for the great feedback and suggestions! Electric, thank you also for joining the discussion. We definitely can use your assistance. :) I have actually been preparing a growing list of support for the film from multiple types of sources, including The New York Times and websites either that review movies or that commentate on the African-American culture. I hope to post it in the Talk section sometime today. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The movie review sites I'd be leery of. If I were you, I'd go to news sources that include film critics, not online review sites. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the NYT piece "To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case"? That used to be cited in the article but IIRC it wasn't cited for anything it actually contained so it was removed. I hope you're not thinking of citing it as support for the film's alleged historical claims, because the article makes it clear that those claims are false and that supporters of the film don't know or don't care about the actual history. For further evidence that the film's claims are generally agreed to be propagandic nonsense, see this evaluation (it's not about the film, but it's about the same claims the film makes). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that ALL scholars reject Sanger's connection with Eugenics and that that the connection can be regarded as false in WP's voice just does not pass the sniff test. While Sanger's motivations are debated, that SOME connection exists is provable in primary sources (Sanger wrote extensively in Eugenics Review, and was a favored speaker of the KKK, though, oddly enough, worked with African-American pastors as well), and extensively covered in Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers, by Professor Joane Nagel , and Professor Angela Frank's excellent and exhaustive Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility. While true, that the academics you cite, can be classified as academics, that in no way means that your list is exhaustive or representative(it isn't, and to say it is is WP:OR), nor does it mean that those select few have no bias; also not true, they all belong to one or another feminist school (not that there's anything wrong with that), and the Margaret Sanger Papers project participants have something of an understandable personal interest in deifying Sanger; their academic advancement is a little more tied to accentuating Sanger's positive traits than it would had they been general historians.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The other issue of the connection of all this to present day Planned Parenthood is entirely separate. Haven't searched too hard, but have never heard a convincing argument that the views are endorsed or even known by present-day Planned Parenthood workers/leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC) --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jdemarcos on 11:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Michael Servetus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jdemarcos (talk · contribs)
• Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Anatoly Ilych Belousov insists on keeping a section in the article titled "New Works" in which alleged discoveries by just one Spanish scholar, Dr. González-Echevarría, are presented as if they enjoyed generalized consensus by Servetus scholars. These works are still under academic review and further studies are needed before claiming that they can be included in Servetus' corpus of authentic works. I respected the new section and wanted to add a POV-section template, but the editor has removed the banner and replaced it with a link to the scholar's own website as enough proof that the information is reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to maintain a civilized discussion in the Talk page, but this editor and his small group of supporters insist on keeping the article as they like in support of Dr. González-Echevarría's views and ignoring what other scholars have published.

How do you think we can help?

I think that the section should be preserved until further proof is obtained that the so-called "new works" are legitimate. Meanwhile, some banner should be visible at the beginning of the "New Works" section, warning readers that the issue is not yet settled by scholars and it is simply an individual's original research (which may be valuable but still needs further investigation).

Opening comments by Jdemarcos

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov

A.I Belousov.

I have no intention of keeping this discussion. Users talked in the talk page, it is just De Marcos who did not like it. By the way , it was not me who removed that " not neutrality" label, and that user waited for more than a month, after the voting in the talk page. Too long,for a clear consensus.

The banner should be then of course as well in the identity and birthplace of Servetus. Which is not mentioned, at all. And for there is a growing theory, it has to have the banner. So, if there is in one place, ok, fine, but in the other as well. I am out of this discussion, I will react to editions , and I guess other users will.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

I am not opening up the discussion yet -- we are waiting for the Opening comments by Jdemarcos. -- but while we wait we need to correct a few things.

First, The Opening comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov are 5,829 characters long. Please trim the comments to 2,000 characters (about a third of the size it is now).

Second, multiple statements in the above violate the rules at the top of this page, which say "This noticeboard is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct." and "Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors." Please go back and delete all comment that are talking about other editors rather than discussing article content.

This discussion section will remain closed until these issues are fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed the comment "this editor and his small group of supporters." Should the member of the small group of supporters be added to the list of involved editors and notified? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no group of supporters, there are different users who think the same, actually just De Marcos thinks differently, I think I can remove the explicit mention to the website in the works section. I think that is fair enough. The rest of references should stay

that's it, removed explicit mention in the new works section of that website, just cause it is uncommon to have links in the middle of the sections. The other 3 remain, and the works section now has the references of the organizations that passed it. that is what I accept.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No issues with it now. Still waiting for opening comments by Jdemarcos. The dispute overview should be a neutral and factual description of the dispute. The opening statement is the place to explain why you think your pref erred content should be in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)