Talk:Secular Organizations for Sobriety

Notice of potential COI

I recently had a telephone conversation Off-Wiki with the founder of SOS, which was related to recent user warnings I gave to an IP address user (not the founder, but someone he knows) who was deleting things without discussion. I believe that that the deletion problem will not happen again, but whether the user will actually join the discussion instead of simply giving up is up in the air. I certainly encouraged him to join the discussion.

During my conversation, we talked about some things that he thought to be wrong about the page. In some cases I simply had to explain how Wikipedia works, in a few cases I encouraged him to come up with some citations to reliable sources, and in a few cases I believe I identified some real problems that need to be addressed.

Because of my off-wiki contact, I now have a conflict of interest, and I ask other Wikipedia editors to please scrutinize my edits for any bias. For my part I will be extra careful to avoid any POV pushing. In that spirit, I am making the following changes to the page. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree with any of them. The edits are:

Under "Process", there is a reference to a book by Fletcher, Anne M. and Glaser, Frederick B. Neither author is part of SOS and this book is not a reliable source for what SOS teaches. Except for one small detail, the material is all found on one of the two main SOS web pages, so I am changing the reference. I am also deleting the statement "known as 'daily do's.'" as not being supported by the Fletcher-Glaser book (which is not a reliable source anyway) or by any SOS webpage or publication.

Under "History" I am removing the paragraph about LifeRing Secular Recovery because it is a separate organization, not really part of the history of SOS. LifeRing is listed in "See Also", and the information is already on the LifeRing Wikipedia page.

Under "Literature" there is the following entry: "Secular Organizations for Sobriety (1997). Sobriety handbook, the SOS way: an introduction to Secular Organizations for Sobriety / Save Our Selves (SOS). Oakland, California: LifeRing Press. ISBN 0965942902. OCLC 37853736."

This is not published or endorsed by SOS. It was written by the current head of LifeRing while he was part of SOS. When they parted ways he retained to copyright and it is now published by LifeRing press^{LifeRing press has an injunction prohibiting this or any other use of the name "Secular Organizations for Sobriety" or "SOS"}. I am removing it because it is not a reliable source for information about SOS (it is also listed on the LifeRing Wikipedia page, where I believe it is a reliable source for what LifeRing teaches.)

Under "further reading" there is this entry: "Wilson, David (1991). Secular organizations for sobriety: recovery without religion (M.A. Thesis). Sonoma State University. OCLC 25243661."

I do not believe that this MA thesis meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so I am removing it. We could use a longer and better list of further reading; does anyone familiar with the literature have any suggestions?

Again, while I believe that the above edits are noncontroversial, I may have an unconscious bias, so please feel free to review and discuss. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't really care, but I am confused by this edit you made at LifeRing.[1] Was this book used by SOS at the time? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I didn't review any of you edits on this article. I'm here because LifeRing is on my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask that specific question (and of course could not use the info if I did, it being original research.) All I have to go on is that the founder of SOS and the founder of LifeRing had some sort of falling out right around the time that book was published (I have zero interest in the details of that), claims the book was written by the founder of LifeRing and claims that LifeRing got the book Of course that's one side and the other side no doubt will give me a different story, so I decided to be safe and edit the reference to the book in the LifeRing article to contains only what I could verify from the OCLC and ISBN entries, neither of which appear to list an author.

Based upon the fact that the publisher is LifeRing Press (1997) and that it is the first edition, I can speculate that it was first published after the split, but in the end Wikipedia policy is clear; someone challenged the assertion that SOS was the author of that book, so no author will be listed until someone comes up with a citation to a reliable source showing the name of the author.

While searching for author info, I ran into this: http://207.228.230.17/lifering.org/archive/history/litigation/injunction.htm - An injunction which appears to disallow any use of the phrase "Secular Organizations for Sobriety" by LifeRing after 10 October, 1997. I then found this: ::http://www.amazon.com/Sobriety-Handbook-Introduction-Secular-Organizations/dp/0965942902/ - Which says the book "Sobriety Handbook: The SOS Way: An Introduction to Secular Organizations for Sobriety/Save Our Selves (Sos)" was published in September 1997. The trial which resulted in the injunction started On February 4, 1997 and on August 27, 1997 the Court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. This also suggests that the book was published after the two organizations split. Nonetheless, I am not going by any of my conclusions. Instead I am simply deleting unsourced material and asking anyone who wishes to put it back to provide a citation. Guy Macon (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like deletion of sourced material to me -- Scarpy (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't sourced material. Look at your edit here. You re-added www.example.org, which is an invalid URL that was accidentally left in by a cut-and-paste error. www.example.org is not a valid web site; see RFC2606.

It appears that you did not wish to restore the example.org link, but rather intended to restore this. As I explained before, that link is to a book that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for being a reliable source for what SOS teaches. If you want to put it back in, make an argument supporting it being a reliable source for what SOS teaches. Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It had the correct and incorrect URL In the reference. A couple of points (1) There is no reason to remove the master thesis. (2) Management of the High-Risk DUI Offender is a reliable source, and there is no reason to remove that paragraph. (3) Sober for Good is a more than adequate source for the information tied to it in the article. (4) Your argument for removing the Sobriety Handbook from the list of literature makes sense to me. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The text that the citation references is:

SOS recognizes genetic and environmental factors contributing to addiction, but allows each member to decide whether or not alcoholism is a disease. SOS holds the view that alcoholics can recover (addictive behaviors can be arrested), but that ultimately it is never cured; relapse is always possible. SOS does not endorse sponsor/sponsee relationships.

There is an excellent reason for removing the master thesis as a citation supporting the above paragraph. It is not a reliable source for what "SOS recognizes.", for the views "SOS holds" or what "SOS does not endorse". A thesis on Management of the High-Risk DUI Offender may very well be a reliable source for managing high-risk DUI offenders, but it is not a reliable source for the positions of SOS. (It works the other way as well; the SOS webpage is an authority and a reliable source on what SOS teaches, but that doesn't mean that it is a reliable source on managing high-risk DUI offenders.) Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, David Wilson's master's thesis (Secular organizations for sobriety: recovery without religion) never was cited as supporting that paragraph, but it is excellent in the further reading section. Go back to when I actual wrote the paragraph before all of the bumbling edit wars: [2]. That paragraph comes from Sober for Good: New Solutions for Drinking Problems--Advice from Those Who Have Succeeded.

Scholarly literature that may write on something related to the topic, is still a reliable source for the related topics. If there is a SOS documentation that LifeRing was not founded in 1997 by members of SOS, then we can have a discussion. You're not talking to a tyro, I've through been WP:RS, dozens, if not hundreds of times--a least once for every time it's been mentioned in a discussion on a talk page that I've participated in.

You said earlier that you did not remove sourced material, you did. Stop doing that without discussing it. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Are These Links To Reliable Sources?

Other that a minor (and correct) change in non-displayed link name, you simply reverted every one of my edits, including the edit you previously said you agreed with. I explained why I made each change when I made them. It is now up to you to explain each removal, as is explained in the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle page.

You can start by explaining why you believe that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are authorities on what SOS teaches. Are you asserting that they are official spokespersons for SOS? Recognized authorities on the internals of SOS?

After that you can explain why you believe that LifeRing is part of the history of SOS, rather than a splinter group.

Also, while you are not required to do so, would you care to disclose what relationship, if any, you have with SOS and/or LifeRing? Full disclosure: as I discussed at the top of this section, my only connection with either is receiving a couple of short emails and the one phone conversation I listed above. Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

For your convenience education, here is a numbered list of the reasons I made the edits. Please explain why you reverted each edit.

(1): Under "Process", there is a reference to a book by Fletcher, Anne M. and Glaser, Frederick B. Neither author is part of SOS and this book is not a reliable source for what SOS teaches. Except for one small detail, the material is all found on one of the two main SOS web pages, so those are what should be cited. The statement "known as 'daily do's.'" is not supported by any SOS webpage or publication.

(2): Under "History" LifeRing Secular Recovery is listed as part of the history of SOS. It is a separate organization, not really part of the history of SOS. LifeRing is listed in "See Also", and the information is already on the LifeRing Wikipedia page.

(3): Under "Literature" there is the following entry: "Secular Organizations for Sobriety (1997). Sobriety handbook, the SOS way: an introduction to Secular Organizations for Sobriety / Save Our Selves (SOS). Oakland, California: LifeRing Press. ISBN 0965942902. OCLC 37853736." This is not published or endorsed by SOS. It was written by the current head of LifeRing while he was part of SOS. When they parted ways he retained to copyright, but a court injunction prohibits him from publishing it or any other use of the name "Secular Organizations for Sobriety" or "SOS" This reference appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as an end-run around the court's orders, not a legitimate reference to relevant literature.

(4): Under "further reading" there is this entry: "Wilson, David (1991). Secular organizations for sobriety: recovery without religion (M.A. Thesis). Sonoma State University. OCLC 25243661." This is a MA thesis with no indication that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Guy Macon (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything, so I don't have really anything to explain. But, since you seem keen on wasting everyone's time, I will reciprocate. I have no relationship to SOS or LifeRing, and I don't care about whatever tension there is in the two groups. If you go through the edit history, you'll see I wrote initial versions of both articles, and I have no particular bias towards one or the other. Apparently there's some controversy I'm not aware of regarding their relationship -- I don't care. I also wrote initial versions of the Crystal Meth Anonymous, Nicotine Anonymous, Sexual Compulsives Anonymous and Overeaters Anonymous articles, among many others -- but leadership from those four organizations contacted me when they thought I had represented them unfairly. They all thought I had some kind of agenda. Some of them threatened to sue me. If SOS or LifeRing wants to join the ranks of those groups, they can be my guest. It's unfortunate that people who volunteer their time to research a topic and contribute to Wikipedia become targets in this way. Either way, rest assured, nothing you are doing here has anything to do with my "convenience."

To points (1) and (2) you are aware that the notability (WP:N) of an organization to have a Wikipedia article is directly related to it's substantial coverage in reliable THIRD-PARTY sources, are you not? This idea you're advocating that this article should be nothing more than restating what's on the SOS website is completely without justification. If you want to remove all of the third party sources and replace them with self-published ones, please do. At this point, it would make me very happy to nominate this article for deletion on the grounds that notability is not demonstrated by coverage of the topic in reliable third-party sources. At least I can stop wasting my time with this completely useless and obviously politically motivated conversation.

To point (3). You're right, will remove that.

To point (4), master's theses are reliable sources, and I see nothing in the proposed guidelines (Wikipedia:Further reading) that lead me to believe that it should be removed. -- Scarpy (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "master's theses are reliable sources, and I see nothing in the proposed guidelines (Wikipedia:Further reading) that lead me to believe that it should be removed." You are not only attempting to apply the wrong Wikipedia policy, it isn't an actual policy. Wikipedia:Further reading is a proposed Wikipedia policy. This exact issue has been brought up before on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and the determination was that masters theses are not reliable sources.

Re: "I didn't remove anything, so I don't have really anything to explain.", you are mistaken on both counts. First, you did remove something. You removed my edits. Secondly, please read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Explain reverts and Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain reverts for an explanation of your responsibility to explain reverts.

Re: "This idea you're advocating that this article should be nothing more than restating what's on the SOS website is completely without justification.", That is not what I wrote. Please don't put words in my mouth. I was quite clear; the section describing what SOS teaches should be based upon - no surprise here - what SOS teaches. If you wish to insert material from a third party in the section describing what SOS teaches, it must be in the form of "third party X claims that SOS teaches Y" with a citation establishing that third party X is indeed a reliable source on the topic of what SOS teaches.I am still waiting for you to explain why you believe that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are authorities on what SOS teaches. Again I ask, are you asserting that they are official spokespersons for SOS? Recognized authorities on the internals of SOS?

Re: "At this point, it would make me very happy to nominate this article for deletion on the grounds that notability is not demonstrated by coverage of the topic in reliable third-party sources.", You can try that if you wish, but It will be quickly shot down because contents of articles are not valid grounds for notability deletion according to Wikipedia policy.

Re: "To points (1) and (2) you are aware that the notability (WP:N) of an organization to have a Wikipedia article is directly related to it's substantial coverage in reliable THIRD-PARTY sources, are you not?" You are attempting to apply the wrong Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" and "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research..." We aren't discussing whether to delete these articles as being non-notable. We are discussing the content of the articles.

Re: "but leadership from those four organizations (Crystal Meth Anonymous, Nicotine Anonymous, Sexual Compulsives Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous) contacted me when they thought I had represented them unfairly. They all thought I had some kind of agenda.", if a bunch of people who don't know each other (you can add the leadership of SOS and me to the list of those who think your treatment to be unfair) all come to the same conclusion concerning your behavior, logic dictates that you give serious consideration to the possibility that the problem is you.

Re: "Some of them threatened to sue me" I strongly advise that in such cases you follow the advice found in Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats.

Re: "But, since you seem keen on wasting everyone's time", "At least I can stop wasting my time with this completely useless and obviously politically motivated conversation" and (in your edit summary) "caving in to request for censorship of a citation", you are in clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have placed a warning on your user page concerning these violations. Please stop this behavior.

Based upon the fact that your revert was not based upon Wikipedia policies or guidelines (as explained in detail above) I am considering whether to revert your revert, so if you you have any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that you believe justify your revert now is the time to provide them. Please keep discussing the issue - but be careful about the potential for Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

While we're talking about guidelines: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

Look, if you want information in this artcle to be attributed to the wrong sources, you are in no way acting in the spirit of Wikipedia or it's guidelines no matter how sanctimonious your attempts are to position yourself as a victim.

If you have the time for protracted discussion to argue for your misinterpretations of Wikipedia guidelines, enjoy--those people tend to get their way on Wikipedia regardless of what they're arguing--I don't have the time for this. If you're trying to make things "convenient" for me shorten your responses, skip the drama, get to the point, and stop spamming my talk page with worthless templates. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars]] is not a Wikipedia guideline. Try to learn the difference between essays and guidelines You have made this same error several times already.

You were warned because your behavior is unacceptable. Stop engaging in personal attacks or you will be blocked. Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That is shorter. But that and what you said in the edit summary "User Scarpy refused to explain why he reverted them, and when questioned about the revert responded with insults and abuse." Is false, I did explain them, and I haven't insulted or abused you.

It is sad when people use reasonable guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as if the purpose of them is to give you flimsy grounds for righteous indignation every time someone takes off the kid gloves.

You do realize that a guideline is different than a law, right? It's perfectly normal to speak of someone violating a law, but I have to laugh a little when someone tells me I'm violating a guideline. It is also true that essays are not "official policy" by they are intended to represent "widespread norms or minority viewpoints" -- which would be wise to consider. You see, when I link things, it's because I think you could benefit from the information in them, not because I'm threatening you. I can't stop you from acting like a Wikipedia vigilante, but I don't see any place where I've "personally attacked" you. In fact, reading this discussion again, I don't see a single ad hominem.

I know when someone is wasting my time, and you are wasting my time. Using information in a non-verified legal document sitting on a website--that apparently doesn't even have a domain that resolves to it--to remove a reference to a clearly relevant piece of literature from a Wikipedia article strikes me as a kind of censorship. You can, of course, tell me that you're not wasting my time and that you're not trying to censor the article with based on a spurious claim, and I can disagree. Those aren't "personal attacks" that's two people disagreeing.

You've only been editing consistently for about a year, even though you've had your account since 2006. I think some of this is just a kind of Wikipedia new relationship energy (again, this is something you can disagree with, it's not a "personal attack"). I do find it ironic that your first talk page comment is a dispute about "personal attacks", in which you're actually defending comments you made that someone else decided to deem as "personal attacks" You see how that works? The problem with the "personal attack" argument is that "personal attacks" are mostly in the eye of the beholder. Etiquette is not a science, it's very subjective, it's open war. For example, if someone were to ask me if I thought you were being a "harmonious editor" in this case, you would probably disagree with my response.

If you want to have a discussion WITH ME about THE ARTICLE, you're going to have to stop with this pattern of crying "personal attack" and making empty threats to block me because I disagree with you. If not, fine, go post some more templates on my talk page, and write another post here about how I'm a big meanie.

In the meantime, I have a job, and a life, and for now I'm not dedicating more time to protracted discussion on the topic. HAND. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

On The Question Of Whether These Links Are To Reliable Sources

Scarpy, I am still waiting for you to explain why you believe that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are authorities on what SOS teaches. For the third time, are you asserting that they are official spokespersons for SOS? Recognized authorities on the internals of SOS? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Scarpy, Now that it has been explained to you ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Master_Thesis_as_a_scholar_source ) that masters theses are not considered to be reliable sources, on what basis have you repeatedly re-inserted a link to David Wilson's Master Thesis?

You are required to explain and justify your reverts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Explain_reverts and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts -- This is mandatory, not optional. You have failed to do so. Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought after this things might be different. But, okay.

I didn't say I believed that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are "authorities" on what SOS teaches. I do believe that you if want to include information in this article that represents a summary of what is in their book, it should be cited appropriately, and if you're going to remove the reference you need to remove the content as well. I also believe that in 2008 when I wrote this article after it was deleted for not demonstrating that it met notability requirements by citing third party sources covering SOS, I found it hard to find scholarly sources that covered SOS in enough detail that content from them could be summarized for this article (you'll find most of those do little more than mention it as one of several addiction recovery groups -- how much that's changed since 2008, I don't know). I also think if you want to remove third-party sources from this article, you're at risk of having it deleted again. Moreover, I think if you want to IMPROVE the article, it would be better done by researching and adding content from scholarly sources (if there is new research to be found) then falsely attributing what's in the article and/or removing it. I also think these are very obvious and common sense conclusions.

The discussion from June 23rd of 2011 (FOUR DAYS AGO) actually says master's theses can be "reliable sources," although they often are not. At any rate, it's not used as a source for information in the article, and I don't see a reason to remove it from the further reading section. And, as I said several days ago, it complies with the PROPOSED GUIDELINES for what should be in a further reading section.

Lastly, like the administrators pointed out, I did explain and justify my reverts. I am now doing you the favor of answering your accusatory and unrelated questions. I'm not REQUIRED to do anything, I'm a volunteer who has been nice enough to dedicate my time to add content to Wikipedia and even defend it in exacting discussions like this one. If you think otherwise, you might want to also want check Google Scholar and see if there are any laws in the United States regarding responding to demands on Wikipedia talk pages from disgruntled editors. This is Wikipedia, not a grand jury; there are Wikipedia guidelines, not Wikipedia laws. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Worrying about the removal of third-party sources from an article putting it at risk of being deleted is an interesting theory. I wish you had mentioned it before so that I could explain that you have completely misunderstood Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you look carefully at the "Reasons for deletion" section, especially the line "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline ", you will notice that there is no requirement that the citations establishing general notability must be somehow shoehorned into the text of the article. I have participated in many deletion discussions and have monitored many more. In all cases, listing the citations that establish general notability can be done on the article talk page or during the deletion discussion. No need to put them in the article. I now understand your motives for trying to keep highly questionable links in the article, but I assure you that you don't have to do that.

Getting back to the questionable links, If you don't believe that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are authorities on what SOS teaches, why do you keep re-inserting them as a citation for the section on what SOS teaches? Do you understand that citations need to support the text they are attached to? I would have no problem if the citation was attached to "information in this article that represents a summary of what is in their book", but it isn't. It is attached to information about what SOS teaches.

Your assertion to the contrary, the master's theses does not comply with the proposed guidelines, which clearly say that the citation must be either (A) a reliable source (it isn't), (B) a historically important publication (it isn't), or (C) a work discussed extensively in the article (it isn't).

As to whether some masters theses can be reliable sources, you have made no attempt to establish that this particular one is reliable other than asserting without evidence that it is. Please explain exactly what part of the proposed guidelines you believe allows a masters thesis with no indication of reliability, and please explain why you believe that a proposed guideline should trump the actual consensus of the reliable sources noticeboard.

Wikipedia editors are required to follow Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines whether you accept that basic fact of life or not. Alas, I will remind you of this basic truth every time you assert that the rules don't apply to you, as you have done once again. Accusing me of bad faith won't stop me from pointing it out. Only you deciding that the rules apply to you will do that.

Finally, please tell me that your comment including the text "...check Google Scholar and see if there are any laws in the United States regarding responding to demands on Wikipedia talk pages from disgruntled editors..." is not a legal threat. I am going to assume good faith and interpret it as you simply restating your assertion that Wikipedia policies don't apply to you (as in "there is no law against me violating Wikipedia policy") True, nobody will arrest you or sue you if you refuse to do things that are required (like explaining reverts) and you can always choose to stop editing Wikipedia, but if you choose to keep editing Wikipedia, you are required to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I know you don't like it, but that's the way it is. Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU POSSIBILITY INTERPRET THAT AS A LEGAL THREAT?!?! You are the most uncooperative, exacting, and (for lack of a better term) victim-positioning, person I've ever had the misfortune "collaborating" with on Wikipedia. Please, pretty pretty pretty please, report this discussion, again, on ANI claiming I'm making a legal threat. Please, I beg you. I would love to read what they have to say on the topic.

You do know what that word, "guidelines," means, right? And that Wikipedia actually tells you to ignore them in circumstances where they don't make sense? No, I'm not required to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Neither are you. No one is required to follow Wikipedia guidelines. You'd be one of the people who completed the Milgram experiment.

I never said anything about whether a proposed guidelines should "trump" consensus of editors on a noticeboard. It's completely your hallucination, like most of the accusatory remarks you've made, that I ever expressed anything at all about that. You're very frequently using straw man arguments here, which makes it enormously frustrating to work with you even if you're doing it unintentionally.

What I'm saying is that the thesis would make interesting further reading. You see how that's very different from all of the nonsense you're hurling at me? You'll see that the proposed guidelines list several kinds of circumstances where even a non-reliable source can be listed in such a capacity: "other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation." So, yes, I believe listing it in the further reading section is completely in the spirit of the guidelines, and at best it may be nice to include an annotation explaining why. When I use it as a source, you can waste more of my time demanding that I establish it's reliability.

You obviously haven't reviewed enough discussions of, or guidelines on, article deletion, because if you did you'd know, (1) removing all of the third-party sources from this article it would meet requirements for speedy deletion; (2) you'd know deletion is at the administrator's discretion and that they don't always follow guidelines (particularly when it comes to article deletion); (3) you'd know that AfD and deletion review discussions suck, and if you can avoid getting an article you'd like to see stay drawn in to one, you're saving yourself a lot of time and unnecessary effort. If you happen to like deletion review discussions, remove all of the third-party sources for the article, and I will make one happen for you.

And, now that I think about it, I do believe that Anne Fletcher and Frederick Glaser are authorities on SOS -- as much as anyone possibly could be. SOS isn't physics or chemistry, you can't go to college and get a degree in Secular Organizations for Sobriety. You can only research and learn about it, that's what they did, and then they published it. Scarpy (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "You are the most uncooperative, exacting, and (for lack of a better term) victim-positioning, person I've ever had the misfortune "collaborating' with on Wikipedia", I refuse to be subjected to any further abuse from you. I will be willing to discuss the merits of your revert when and if you decide to be civil.

In the meantime, I find your arguments to be without merit, and your links to not be reliable sources. I am thus restoring my edits, which are based firmly on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning what is and what is not a reliable source. Feel free to bring up the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you have a problem with this. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Being passive-aggressive (e.g. spamming me with templates after I repeatedly asked you not too, implying that I'm making legal threats, etc) is so much worse than being brutally honest, if that's what you're calling "uncivil."

When I tell you that it's difficult FOR ME to work with you, I'm not putting you down, I'm stating a fact. I'm trying to tell you that I wish things weren't that way. If you would like to come over and put me under an fMRI machine and try to argue that I'm actually not frustrated and I'm just saying such things opportunistically or to be mean or whatever, I would certainly welcome you to. Until then, you'll have to trust me when I tell you how I feel about editing with you. If you'd like to do anything to change that, it's up to you.

And, AGAIN, if you want to remove all of the content that summarizes Fletcher's work, that's one thing. BUT YOU CAN'T JUST SLAP ANOTHER CITATION ON IT AND PRETEND THAT IT'S THE SAME. THAT IS NOT "BASED FIRMLY ON WIKIPEDIA'S POLICIES AND GUIDELINES." It would be appropriate to tag them is disputed or dubious, and n fact I'll do that. But you can't attribute material from one source to another, unless they say exactly the same thing, and they don't. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, in the course of this discussion, I have never presented a "link" as a reliable source. I certainly have opinions about the reliability of certain books, articles, and people on the topic of SOS -- and I take care in citing them as accurately as I can and making sure information derived from them is cited correctly in this article. It's fine to have opinions about sources as they relate to WP:N, but that's not a reason to ignore WP:V. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I will be willing to discuss the merits of your edits when and if you decide to be civil. Are you willing to make a commitment to follow WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF?

BTW, you don't get to choose whether or not to receive user warnings when you violate WP:CIV, WP:NPA or WP:AGF. If you don't like being warned, stop the behavior that triggered the warning. I will give you a pass this time (calling other editors passive-aggressive and accusing them of spamming are clear violations) in the hopes that you will decide to cease your ongoing violation of Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm being civil. I didn't "violate" any of Wikipedia *guidlines* you're listing, and when you reported it on ANI you got shot down. I don't see that anyone agrees with you here. You are being uncooperative, you are being passive-aggressive, and you did spam me. Be cooperative and stop accusing me of violating Wikipedia guidelines to avoid actually discussing the article, or we'll just keep going back and forth like this forever. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did you just revert without providing an explanation? -- Scarpy (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what, Guy? If those ~2,000 bytes in this article mean SOOOO much to you, that you're willing endlessly edit war over them, and if you're annoyed, bothered or bugged because of someone calling you "uncooperative", I don't think there's going to be a compromise I can offer here. Attributing what I wrote based on one source to a source that it didn't come from is wrong. There are, now that I've looked, a few new scholarly sources that could be used to buff up this article. In the time spent in this pointless exercise, I could have been doing that. Maybe, if no one else does, in a few weeks or months, I will. In the mean time, I don't have the gas tank for Sisyphean task of pushing ~2,000 bytes in an out of an article when every attempt I make at a compromise is reverted. Have a nice 4th out in sunny Orange County. Say hello to Katy Perry and kiss some sun-stroked hotties on the beach for me. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Commitment on your part to follow WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF is a prerequisite for any further discussion. I will be happy to discuss any of my edits, but only in an environment where I can do so without being subjected to further abuse. Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it you don't like Katy Perry? -- Scarpy (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am being civil, I'm not personally attacking you, and I do assume good faith. Ask far as I can when you say "follow WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF" (especially with the pretentious font weights) you basically mean "agree with me and don't change any edits I make." If you're too much of shrinking violet to have someone criticize or change any edits you've made, like I said, there's no compromise (that I can see) to be made for now.

I'm not sure if you get what I'm saying here, but I'm offering to drop this for now. Can you please let it go and stop spamming posting unsolicited and redundant template messages on my talk page?

Even if you think I deserve to be berated with talk page templates for disagreeing with you, I'm basically saying I think we're at an impasse and we can be more productive a few weeks or a few months from now. Can we agree on that? Can we drop it for now? It's the 4th of July, go have some fun and watch some fireworks, don't spend it posting templates on my talk page over a few thousand bytes of text. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You were warned (warned, not "berated") on your talk page, not for "disagreeing with me" but rather for being uncivil with comments such as "You are being uncooperative, you are being passive-aggressive, and you did spam me", all clear violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, as were previous personal attacks such as "...no matter how sanctimonious your attempts are" and "You are the most uncooperative, exacting, and (for lack of a better term) victim-positioning, person I've ever had the misfortune 'collaborating' with on Wikipedia".

The problem isn't my use of warning templates. The problem is you continuing to violate WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF and justifying your bad behavior. You can stop the user warnings at any time by following WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you had bothered to actually read the user warnings you would have seen this: "COMMENT ON CONTENT, NOT ON CONTRIBUTORS." I suggest you try doing that. This is really. really simple. Stop posting personal attacks and the warnings for posting personal attacks stop. Continue to post personal attacks and you will be warned. Keep it up long enough and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia - and in such cases administrators look at your talk page to see whether you were warned.

Clearly you are trying to suck me into further drama. What part of "Commitment on your part to follow WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF is a prerequisite for any further discussion." are you having trouble understanding? Guy Macon (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're honestly trying to tell me that kindly asking you if you would be willing to leave me alone and let this go for a matter of a few weeks to a few months, with all of your edits intact, is "clearly trying suck you in to further drama?" Seriously?

Posting seven threatening templates on my talk page, including three in one edit after in your own ANI you were told there was no substance to your claim, is berating -- to put it subtly. Harassment, in my opinion, would be a more appropriate term.

I, especially under the circumstances, am being extremely civil. You have harassed me, you have reverted (without explanation in the last case) attempts I made at compromising on content in the article, you have ignored the very reasonable explanations I've given for correctly citing content appearing in the article, you have accused me of making legal threats, you have ignored my offer to take a break from this discussion, you have continued to do this after dragging me through an ANI in which the administrator disagreed with you, and throughout all of this you've accused me of being "uncivil."

Again, nothing you've quoted me as saying is a "personal attack." I'm sure you are a very nice person, and do very good work as an engineer; but what you are doing here, in this very specific case, is horribly counter-productive. When I point that out you accuse me of making "personal attacks." Those are not personal attacks, it's criticism of your behavior in editing this article. I understand, however, that you don't see a difference. So I would suggest, again, that would be a great reason to agree to disagree and drop this discussion for now and perhaps revisit it later with cooler heads.

Know that for now I'm taking this article off my watch list. Also know that if you continue capriciously posting threatening templates on my talk page, I will likely open my very own ANI regarding that specific behavior. Have a nice summer. -- Scarpy (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;

And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,

or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;

'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."

-- The Boxer, by Simon & Garfunkel

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you'd be motivated to gloat over the amount of time and energy that was wasted on this discussion, unless you're a complete WP:DICK. There you go, an honest to goodness ad hominem that you can take, report on ANI, be righteously indignant about me calling you, use as grounds to spam me with templates, and explain in detail how I (according to Wikipedia guidelines) should now be sentenced to death by electrocution (per WP:AGF). You win, Mr. Boxer Man. -- Scarpy (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. I will refrain from putting a warning on your user page this time because the comment you replied to (a correct prediction that you would return and resume your personal attacks) might itself be considered uncivil, but you need to stop this behavior now.

If you are considering once again re-inserting a link to David Wilson's Master Thesis, be advised that we have a ruling on the issue from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you disagree with the ruling, I suggest that you take it up there. Also see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)