Talk:Ganas/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Controversy Revisited

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So this is my rough draft for a new and improved Controversy section. For now I am leaving in wife-swapping until we decide what to do with it. I realize this paragraph reads rather clunkily, one statement after another, but without risking "synthesis" I don't know how to make it read smoother. So, there it is, now let's have it! Eroberer (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please revew the material involed as there was no consensus for much that inclusion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what rough draft means? You are being disruptive making major changes whenever you please. Eroberer (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressing RA's major changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I think I can surmise your logic in including the shooting in the History section. However, don't you think it's a mistake to introduce this without some background about the culture and controversy of Ganas? As it stands readers are just plopped down in the middle of this without any context, and as much of what's controversial came out in the media as a result of the shooting, it seems to me they belong together.

Second, it's not allright to include only Mildred Gordon's definition of Feedback Learning. That's just as POV as omitting it completely. Before we had an objective reporter's view of it as well as Gordon's interpretation, and that's as it should be. If we only allow primary sources to define things then we might as well give up the encyclopedia and just let folks write their own promotional material on these pages. What's more, "designed to allow members to control their reactions to the world" is not what the source says about feedback learning, but about "killing one's buddha", which is such an obscure term it shouldn't be included without explanation, but what you've done is the dreaded SYNTHESIS you so often reprimand me for. "an intense brand of communication [21] designed to allow members to control their reactions to the world" does not explain how (in an objective viewpoint) communication would allow members to...and I don't think it's out of context for this reporter to say feedback learning looks to him like group therapy. Rather it's very helpful for understanding the context of the entire article.

I also don't think being tested for HIV explains what safe sex groups are, though I'm not surprised you're not happy with the source quotes, they are the only definition of safe sex groups I can find.

As an added note, the NYPost website is unreliable and the links are often not working. I think a working link outweighs the significance of link violations, don't you?

Can I hear some others' opinions on these points? Eroberer (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You forget WP:LINKVIO is a Policy with "Legal Considerations" also WP:RSN has found the Rick Ross site to alter the sources they host to conform to the're POV. When quotes are the entire >60 % of section that again raises issues. Also I still used the source merely presented the information NPOV fashion. We agreed above the quoting of Milford's lack of degree and what thier website said was WP:SYNTH. I shall be rmeoving that again shortly The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What issues does quotes raise? You didn't use the source to define Feedback Learning which is why it's there. It's still POV if you only use Gordon's primary source definition. You are not answering my points but ignoring them. Eroberer (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am restoring the allegation of practicing therapy but removing unlicensed, I assume that is your objection to it. Technically only you and WikiDao agreed that quoting of Mildred's lack of degree and what thier website said was WP:SYNTH, and I still think there should be some explanation of why people think therapy is being practiced there if, as they claim, it is not! Tell me how to write it without it being WP:SYNTH since you are so experienced. Actually, I'd be happy to just include Mildred's lack of degree without quoting their disclaimer, but I thought the idea was to present both sides! You seem to only want to present theirs.

Also I have included the correct citation this time. Eroberer (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the Jonah Lamb quote on Feedback Learning was good. It's unusual enough and central enough to Ganas that it's worth a longer discussion (and, I think, even a lengthy quote). The "Gordon's own literature" sentence currently in there doesn't have a citation, could whoever put that in please fix it? Schneck (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Schneck on Lamb quote, it's an objective observers viewpoint and without it we're stuck with Gordon's own definition. Re: Gordon's literature source - I have a source but not copywrite permission. I think WP says a citation is not necessary for info that's well known/established, unless it is challenged, are you (Schneck)challenging it, or do you find it contentious? Eroberer (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine nothing about Feedback Learning should be considered well-known. Now, there's nothing wrong with citing copyrighted work (most citations are). But is the source not publicly available? If it's not something that readers or other editors could reasonably find, I think it's better to leave it out, especially since we already have a quote from Gordon on FL from a reliable and publicly available source. Schneck (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No it's not publicly available, so I must reluctantly agree. I returned Lamb's view of Feedback Learning to the Culture section in shortened form. It's only fair to include his objective, independent observation and not just rely on Gordon's own definition. Eroberer (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I made several changes, especially to Controversy. I'll mention the ones here in Talk that I guess are most likely to be disputed:

Too contentious to say "FL looks like invasive group therapy" in WP's voice; returned this to quote instead. (This lengthens that Jonah Owen Lamb quote, which, personally, I think is appropriate.)
I don't think the source for an ex-member claiming they practice therapy supports that. Replaced with the exact quote (that they practice mind-control)
The "crackpot" quote specifically states one person from Ganas saying that; not clear that this represents the views of the collective
The defense attorney suggested FL drove people insane during the trial, but the justice stopped him from pursuing that line of questioning. That's not "the shooting prompted questions that FL might drive people insane". I took the whole bit out, but if necessary, it could go back in if it puts it in the context of the trial.
Reminding readers GROW was therapy school, right next to an accusation that Ganas practices therapy, is WP:SYNTH. I deleted this. (Beyond the WP:SYNTH, I'm confident GROW, which is not Ganas, doesn't belong here again, especially given we have questioned whether it even belongs in History.) Schneck (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree - with Schneck changes for the most part, though I'm still not satisfied with Controversy section. Isn't it interesting that Twin Oaks Criticism section shows that Twin Oaks has at least enough integrity to acknowledge their own problems, while Ganas not only deny that any problems exist, but also seeks to stop people from talking about them.

I'd like WikiDao to weigh in on Schneck changes. Eroberer (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been sort of busy elsewhere lately, but should get a chance to look in on how things have been coming along here soon (later today, or even tomorrow if it is going to require a lot of attention). Regards, WikiDao ☯ 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad to see that agreement. That's a good sign. And I think, at this point, it would really be best if those most interested in and familiar with this material would be able to work together civilly to arrive at a reasonable and mutually acceptable compromise about what should and should not be in the article. I am not too familiar with this material, so I can really only comment usefully about whether something specifically violates a WP policy or not in my view. I think both of you, Eroberer and Schneck, have a pretty good sense of what those policies are and how they apply here at this point. So, I'd like to try to step back again and let you two hash things out for awhile. You're both doing fine, you're making progress with the article, and I think there is a sufficiently workable amount of good-faith on both sides at this point too. If it bogs down completely again or gets heated and disputational, I'll try to help out with that. Otherwise: have at it, and happy editing! :) WikiDao ☯ 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article, though not perfect, is looking pretty good! I am thankful for your work. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Has the controversy been resolved. I ask as the artcile is a candidate for a GAN quick-fail with that tag outstanding. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I still question the inclusion of the pre-Ganas GROW story in this article. Also I think the amount of financial details included may be inappropriate. However, I'm happy for those details to be worked out in the future by the normal editing process, and would not object to the removal of the dispute tag at this time. Schneck (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ganas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At first glance, the article seems stable as it hasn't been edited (apart from one minor edit) since January. Looking at the talkpage, however, shows a long history of disputes on the content of the article, right up to the point when editing on the article seems, for some reason, to have ceased. Much of the recent(ish) editing has been done by two or three editors who, looking at the talkpage discussions, have strong points of view on the subject, so perhaps inevitably, there is still some question over neutrality. The neutrality tag was brought up recently on the talkpage and the one editor who responded does not seem happy with the current content included, questioning the appropriateness of some of it. Another editor heavily involved in disputes has not been active since January. It's really hard to tell to what extent disputes have been resolved, if they have at all. I'm not sure exactly why the neutrality tag was put on the article, but I agree that the article does not quite meet the standard of WP:NPOV at the moment. Some sentences actually seem to describe the group in slightly promotional tones (probably due to the close paraphrasing of the group's website, more on that below), and there seems to be undue weight on rumours and allegations, including some that seem to be unrelated to Ganas. I'd say quite a bit of work needs to be done on the content, and disputes need to be resolved, rather than just allowed to die away quietly, before this can meet the [WP:WIAGA|good article criteria]]. I have no idea if the main editors of the article consider it to be GA-standard yet as the nomination seems to have been made purely as a response to a random compliment on the talkpage. I will go through the article and point out some other ways to improve the article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Some issues listed below, would benefit from a copyedit or at least a proofread
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Some issues with verifiability, WP:SYNTH
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Seem to be some gaps in the information, undue weight on possibly unrelated matters.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrality is disputed, some comments below
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Have been content disputes which don't seem to be resolved
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No problems with images
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose/manual of style issues

There are numerous minor issues regarding the manual of style, some of which I have corrected. If and when the article gets nearer a "finished" state regarding the content, it would benefit from a copyedit from someone who is uninvolved, and is more familiar with the MOS.

Lead

This is not a GA issue, but generally developed articles don't have so many citations in the lead. Remember that per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the main points of the article, so there shouldn't be anything there (with rare exceptions) that isn't included, and preferably expanded on, later on. Inline citations should accompany the facts when they appear in the main body of the article, meaning that the lead can be left cite-free which is easier to read. (There are some exceptions; direct quotes, for example).
"Ganas is an urban experiment committed to exploring applications of Feedback Learning" - this is close paraphrasing of the source (the Ganas website), more care needs to be taken to change the wording to avoid copyright infringement. Note that although WP:PARAPHRASE is just an essay, it has been written to help editors avoid violating the copyright policy.
"Participation in the group process is obligatory in some situations." - what situations would those be? This is not explained later in the article
"10–12", "60 to 70" (in the same sentence), style needs to be more consistent
Make sure the lead summarises the main points of the article, and doesn't just act as an introduction. There is a (relatively) large section on finance which is not mentioned in the lead.

History

I realise this has been the subject of some dispute, but it's unclear why there is this paragraph on GROW. I'm not saying that group shouldn't be mentioned, but it's not at all clear why it is, other than to drag up some murky history on the founder. Nothing in that paragraph is directly relevant to Ganas (other than the implication that if her first group was fraudulent, her next group must be too). If this is kept in, it also needs to be a bit clearer whether or not GROW was actually convicted of anything. Investigations are mentioned, but no convictions. "that same year, a general investigation into unregulated mental therapy in New York..." - is this directly related (in sources) to the GROW investigations? Or is it just WP:SYNTH? Be careful also of WP:UNDUE
"core group" or "core-group"? Be consistent.
A brief explanation of biofeedback would be helpful
Foundation for Feedback Learning is a circular link, so isn't helpful to readers
"May of 2006" → just "May 2006"
This shooting incident, although the reason that the group made headlines, should probably be moved further down. It doesn't flow well at present, having a bit of history, a bit about the shared ownership of houses, this guy got shot in 2006, and then you actually start telling us about the group's culture/activities

Culture

The discussion of Feedback Learning seems to mainly consist of two lengthy quotes. I appreciate that they have both been included to show two opposing viewpoints, but the facts should be summarised more, rather than just quoting.

Business and Financial Info

subheadings should be in sentence case and use full words (ie. not "info")
Everything Goes does not need to be in quotation marks
"Full time work is 35 hours a week, and wages cover all community expenses plus a $300/mo stipend. Profit sharing opportunities may be available to some members." - full time work for whom? All of the group members? These two sentences seem a bit randomly stuck in, almost like a job advert... then again, it has been too-closely paraphrased from the website.
Spell out or wikilink (or both) IRS - remember not all Wikipedia readers are American.
Why does this section refer to FFL, as if that is the current name of the group? Hasn't it been Ganas since the early 90s?

Controversy & Criticism

This has been the subject of dispute, and to me, it seems somewhat less-than-neutral. What form have these "serious allegations" taken? Have they been made in court? Have investigations been made? Have accusations been made via the press? it's all a little vague.
Not sure why the public perception of the group as a "commune" is included as "controversy" or "criticism".
Really not sure about the "wife swapping" sentence. Firstly, it says "the media has characterized" - but this is supported by one citation to one article in one newspaper - is this one article representing the whole of "the media"? Secondly, I would only consider it really notable to mention this if the fact itself has been reported on. Eg. if there was an article in (for example) the Washington post which described the group in general terms and went on to say "the group has been characterized by the media as indulging in "wife-swapping"", then it might be worth mentioning. I don't see the point of including a link that goes to swinging either - that's clearly not adding anything to this article.

References

Dates shouldn't be linked
Newspaper titles should be in italics
Dates should be consistently formatted (not a GA requirement)

External links

Including a link to a website on the GROW controversy seems to be putting undue weight onto GROW

Verifiability/referencing

There is a {{citation needed}} template
There is no newspaper called London Sunday Times
More info needs to be included in many references to enable readers to properly verify information
Online only sources need retrieval dates added

Broad in coverage?

Is there no information on the other five founding members?
No info on why it's called Ganas? I know this has been discussed, but I saw it mentioned in one of the sources, and from the talkpage discussion, I gather that the group has made it known why it chose that name. I'm sure some readers would be interested to know.
I think we could use some more info on the day to day activities of the members. For example, at least one of the secondary sources mentions some of the group's activities in the neighbourhood they live in.
Any particular reason Mildred Gordon left the group?

Once any issues have been resolved, I'd recommend taking the article to peer review before another GA nomination. --Beloved Freak 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

Most of this has been covered extensively in archived discussions, Marelstrom pls read. Ganas website says residents agree to abide by rules, one of which is non-negotiable negativity. Obligatory participation is simpler way of saying same, we strive to avoid directly quoting primary sources unless absolutely necessary, this is not an advertisement. Summary should consist of the main topics in article, ergo shooting belongs in summary. Recycling, store details, work arrangements already mentioned in body and trivial, again not an advertisement. No independent reference for core value or co-founders, only for original founder and central figure Gordon whose history is highly relevant. Again, all this covered in previous discussions, pls familiarize yourself and participate here if you make changes. Eroberer (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "Recycling, store details, work arrangements already mentioned in body and trivial, again not an advertisement." Actually, I wrote it not because I want to advertise the community, but because it is a neutral way of describing Ganas. --Marelstrom (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO Ganas residents, which Marelstrom (talk) obviously is, should not be involved with this article at all, as they seem unable to grasp the WP notion of what constitutes neutrality. Neutral does not mean eliminate all controversy and let the subject define themself. Any description of Ganas should be from objective source not their own literature. Left note on your talk page. Eroberer (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not a Ganas resident. You believe that my changes are not neutral, but I believe they are. I would not mind third party intervention, if you are not willing to discuss the specifics. --Marelstrom (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yer IP 96.250.214.152 is from Staten Island, looks pretty suspicious to me. Anyway I HAVE discussed the specifics, seems you are not willing to address my points, specically your misunderstanding of neutrality and how it relates to Wikepedia policy IN PARTICULAR. Typical. Eroberer (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality on what points? --Marelstrom (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm a current resident of Ganas, and I agree that residents probably shouldn't contribute to this for the previously stated reasons." from 96.250.214.152. So obviously Marelstrom (talk) is a liar, as they above claim to be "not a Ganas resident." Excuuuuuuse Me! Eroberer (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Marelstrom (talk) where are your references for core value, half of members work outside, names of founding members? Ganas literature is not a valid source, see WP policy on primary sources. I have reverted and will be seeking administrator assistance, as you are in violation of WP outing policy as well. Eroberer (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[NOTICE BOARD] --Marelstrom (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations added. More will be added within the coming weeks, by me or whomever would like to research. --Marelstrom (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying hello at the moment. I might join the editing or the discussion soon. COI: visited Ganas once. Jeremy Bem (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll start with the discussion. I think the recent changes (month of May, looks like) are obviously problematic and should just be reverted. But my main question is, why are current members reluctant to edit the article? Does anyone know? Jeremy Bem (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not month of May. It's since April 22 and User:Marelstrom. There's just no comparison between Marelstrom's poorly explained edit summaries and the lengthy discussions that led to the prior revision of the introductory paragraph. I'll be reverting shortly. Jeremy Bem (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All three of you come very close to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account status. Personally, I see some part of Marelstrom's edits as improvements and some parts as detrimental. I think that more people involved in editing this article will help though. dm (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate (what do you consider an improvement, versus detriment)? --Marelstrom (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea that current members are reluctant to edit was based on personal correspondence from a core-group member. Would it make sense to get that published so that it could appear among the controversies? As for why they're reluctant, I don't know exactly. I was in the bookstore fairly recently and found that experience to be interesting and possibly relevant. If I have time this weekend, I might try to describe it. Jeremy Bem (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here by Eroberer; my comments are aimed at everyone trying to improve the article, no one person in particular. I reviewed the article when it was nominated for WP:GAN due to my experience with GA reviews, I have no particular interest in the topic. I outlined a number of (in my opinion) shortcomings with the article in that review. To be honest, I'm not prepared to give much attention to this article. I edit Wikipedia as a hobby, and I'm afraid this is not something I'm particularly interested in, and I find articles like this that seem to turn into battlegrounds somewhat stressful. I'm sorry if that seems like passing the buck, but this is just not my thing. That said, the article does need more editors from outside the little group that is currently editing. I'd agree with Dmadeo's comment above about Single-purpose accounts (or pretty close). That's not a healthy situation for the article. Unfortunately, many editors may, like me, be put off editing with so many arguments on the talkpage already.

I'd recommend trying the various noticeboards that might be relevant. Eg. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (if that's considered relevant) or Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. If you can't attract enough interest, you might need to try a request for comment, but you'll need to be specific about what you want people to comment on. If you get to the stage that it's necessary, there's also Wikipedia:Mediation. Don't get too hung up on what maintenance tags are there. It's pretty clear there is a dispute here still.

I appreciate that you are all attempting to discuss things here, but you need to stop reverting each other and come to agreement here first. Edit warring (even slowly where you manage to avoid breaking WP:3RR) is not in the best interest of the article, or its readers. There are too many comments here based on personal anecdotal knowledge and too many comments about other editors. Remember, it's the content that's important. Conflicts of interest do cause problems, and there are several people involved here that appear to have a personal involvement one way or another with Ganas, but I think we're all aware of that. Just work on getting the content improved in line with policy. And just a note on the anecdotal stuff, I'm sure no one needs reminding here that personal correspondence or personal experiences cannot be used to source the article, we need good quality reliable, secondary sources. Jeremy Bem's comment above, "Would it make sense to get that published so that it could appear among the controversies?" is a little strange to me - that's kind of the opposite of what we should be doing, which is looking at what has been pubished already in reliable sources and using that.

I would say that neutrality is still an issue. For example, this edit, there is a difference between "Ganas describes itself as ..." and "The core value promoted at Ganas is ..." The second version sounds more peacock-y. That's just one example, and not meant to say that in general one editor is right and another is wrong. One of the problems looking at the edit history is the big reversions - it's hard to see what's going on. Another problem is the lack of descriptive edit summaries. Really though, as I said, there is clearly a lot of disagreement here and you should get consensus first rather than hoping to revert each other into submission.--Beloved Freak 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I removed it. However Ganas describes itself as, or if they promote open communication or not (much less succeed), is not something quantifiable --Marelstrom (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored self definition as it tells us that Ganas' purpose is feedback learning, pretty crucial information I think! I don't know what you mean by quantifiable? It seems like Ganas residents don't want to be associated with feedback learning, I don't know why they find that objectionable all of a sudden.

You missed the point. The way they describe themselves is not necessarily what they are. That is subjective. But they do have 3 businesses, they do organize a yearly festival, etc. These things are quantifiable. --Marelstrom (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If The way they describe themselves is not necessarily what they are why not let the reader decide that? Who are you to decide what they truly are, speaking of subjective? Eliminating their central purpose is downright deceptive, and since you want other contributors please make an effort to find some (objective non-Ganas residents) instead of constantly creating more work for me to do. Eroberer (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a quote straight from their website: "Good interactive communication is our central value" --Marelstrom (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be hearing anyone but yourself. They already have their own website, it's not to be repeated here. Everyone involved with this article is against that. Eroberer (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: I restored self definition as it tells us that Ganas' purpose...". (bolded for emphasis) Wouldn't a self definition best come from their website? --Marelstrom (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's actually not a self definition, it comes from the FIC website and appears to be written by the videographer, though the language no doubt comes from Mildred Gordon. So no, a self definition is not necessary since a better quasi-independent one exists. On their website, on their tax returns, in the media Ganas emphasizes the importance of feedback learning to the commune and it's important for the reader to know, it should be a substantial part of the article and reflected in the summary. I am still waiting for some explanation of why they/you currently seek to hide, deny and delete any reference to feedback learning. It makes no sense at all. It's like a Scientology article that doesn't mention dianetics, auditing or L Ron Hubbard. Eroberer (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"An urban experiment in open dialogue based on full disclosure and commitment to exploring applications of Feedback Learning" This sentence is jargon that needs to be turned into common english. --Marelstrom (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should such an integral aspect of Ganas be hidden? Maybe they should address the issue on their own website instead of trying to control content here. Beloved Freak mentions some things sounding peacock-y which is why I've been complaining about too much promotional content from their website. This should not be an advertisement. For some reason if Beloved Freak says the same thing I do he gets agreement and cooperation not opposition! But I don't think Beloved Freak is responsible for or endorses the "version" Marelstrom (talk) attributes to him, as if that makes it more legitimate.

I also agree that the constant reverting needs to stop though agreement looks unobtainable. I agree with many of Beloved Freak's GA review comments but am reluctant to make changes due to all the opposition I get. "...personal correspondence or personal experiences cannot be used to source the article...", that's the truth! Even if you are certain you have correct information you are not a reliable source, period! Otherwise Wikipedia becomes just another promotional brochure - and there's nothing neutral about that! Eroberer (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Marelstrom (talk) you are misrepresenting Beloved Freak, he did not contribute to any version and there is no consensus version involving him. In fact he explicitly said he doesn't want involvement with this article due to the edit warring behavior. He said the open-communication line sounded peacock-y, not that a self-definition should be removed. It appears that you don't really want contributions from others after all. Eroberer (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

St George Day Festival

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

http://www.positivelystatenisland.com/2011/04/st-george-day-this-saturday.html
http://www.stgeorgedaysi.org/
http://www.stgeorgedaysi.org/StGeorgeDay-STORYBOOK-2010.pdf If you look in the PDF, it says "ST GEORGE DAY STORYBOOK produced at EVERY THING GOES BOOK CAFE AND NEIGHBORHOOD STAGE by Stvjns (steve jones) Daughs and Katie McCarthy. Both are Ganas members, and they run the cafe.

From the following link, there is a list of persons that participated in the event. I attended the event and recognize the folliwing names as Ganas members http://www.etgstores.com/bookcafe/stgeorgeday.html Nora Sullivan,... Ana Caneda, Patricio Diaz, Danusch ... Claudia Citkovitz, Martin, Arthur Vallario, Brian Sculley, ... Michael Johnson, Seth Asher, Aviva Bedilla, Alex Derenowski, Julia Greve, Colin Spink, Leslie Greenwood, Jim Full, Richard Wonder, Eric Hirsh, Jenny Lytton, ... Katie McCarthy, Steve Jones Daughs, ... David Kunin, ... Cheri Brunault

Jenny Lytton was a main organizer, if not the organizer: http://statenislandnorth.macaronikid.com/article/111141/st-george-day-festival-celebrating-our-community

Here we go: " “It’s an event to sort of build community and encourage civic engagement and joy through art,” says organizer Jenny Lytton, part of the team from Every Thing Goes Book Cafe and Neighborhood Cafe — 208 Bay St.; 718-447-8256 — putting together the event with the city’s Partnerships for Parks. " Quote from: http://www.silive.com/entertainment/recreation/index.ssf/2010/04/staten_islands_st_george_day_f_1.html --Marelstrom (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The festival was scheduled to be in the park, but it rained (see site), and was held in ETG instead, making the "neighborhood stage" even more in the news, and a defining feature of the cafe and therefore Ganas (and should therefore be noted in the summary). I can't wait to do more research! --Marelstrom (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Kerry wasn't there? I've been getting oddly pro-Ganas messages via Gmail and Facebook that are ostensibly from him. (I'll attend to the edit war shortly.) Jeremy Bem (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That face looks awful familiar... --Marelstrom (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Steve explained to me in the bookstore that mathematicians aren't considered desirable as (non-core) members! Do you think you met him before that was sorted out? Jeremy Bem (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Marelstrom, could we talk about deletion of other people's comments? Jeremy Bem (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that any of the above people agreed to be identified by name here. Marelstrom (talk) you have already been censured for edit warring, I again urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before continuing. Eroberer (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

[NOTICE BOARD] --Marelstrom (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So obviously Marelstrom's "see discussion" doesn't refer to anything whereas mine does. Eroberer, what's the proper procedure? Mediation? It seems too silly for mediation. Jeremy Bem (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Bem (talk) I left note on your talk page. Also I was wondering what you meant about Ganas watching you while on the computer and in the bathroom? Are you saying Ganas monitors resident's computer usage? And/or bathroom usage? Eroberer (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Justify changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Jeremy Bem (talk) I think in this case page protection is the way to go. Marelstrom (talk) the info about where people work could be added to the business section but stop putting it into the summary. It appears this is an excuse to replace the reference to the shooting in the summary, which has been agreed upon by consensus of several editors including objective mediators after much hard work. As you are admittedly a Ganas resident and have serious COI it's not OK for you to delete the work of others with no justification beyond a nebulous claim about neutrality.

No, I am not a Ganas resident. The article is lacking neutrality, and has a tag saying so. While the shooting is news-worthy, it is not a definition of Ganas. For the same reason, President Clinton does not have fellatio in his summary. --Marelstrom (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You are a Ganas resident, you wrote that you are and that you agree you and other residents should not be editing this article. You deleted that comment and then it was redacted. But I saw it so your credibility is shot. Clinton and Ganas are hardly comparable and if Clinton was shot (and then went on to sue the whitehouse) I think it would appear in his summary. But the summary is not a definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia and the summary should be duh- a summary of what is in the article! By your standards details about where people work and how many founders there were don't belong in the summary either, but as I said this was a collaborative effort of several editors with very different views and that's what we decided on. There's a neutrality tag because ONE PERSON decided to put it there, it's not an official decision and as I said, not OK for you to delete the work of others with no justification beyond a nebulous claim about neutrality. AGAIN neutrality means all viewpoints are represented, even in the summary, not anything controversial is deleted and replaced with irrelevant banality. The summary should also reflect the controversial aspects of Ganas. Eroberer (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, the statement about communication being core value is so generic and nebulous it is virtually meaningless. There is already a statement in quotes, presumably written by Ganas itself describing their central purpose, which is feedback learning. This is more specific and explanatory than "communication" and is consistent with rest of article. To remove this introduction of feedback learning and replace it with generic communication without a lengthy explanation of how said communication is achieved, ie through feedback learning, gives readers less information and is confusing. Again I think your motives are the same as above.

Readers will more likely understand "open-communication" to the "feedback learning" jargon. Also, feedback learning is not the only communication practiced. They use other communication methods as well. --Marelstrom (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback learning is the only documented method that can be referenced and that's as it should be as feedback learning is what Ganas was created to do and promote. It merits explanation and if necessary a connection to "open communication" which begs for explanation itself. I don't think anyone agrees on what that means. And because by their own admission the purpose of this open communication is to "solve problems" which is much more informative to readers. In any case I'm compromising to include communication, I think that should be sufficient unless your aim is to eliminate mention of feedback learning. I don't know why you want to do that, especially as feedback learning is unique to Ganas it should be prominent in the article. Unfortunately there's not much documentation about it, which is noteworthy in itself. Why are they trying to hide it? Eroberer (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't think a Meetup page is a valid reference for founding members, we don't know who wrote it, and the whole sentence is a poor intro to the section; it reads badly. I don't know what your motive is here or why you think this info contributes to an understanding of Ganas. Without some justification of the value of this info and a better integration with the rest of the article, which I am not going to do, I see no reason to leave it there sticking out like a sore thumb. Though I have no objection to the info itself, I just don't see the relevance and you consistently refuse to explain. Eroberer (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, Meetup is not a valid source. I've made the same changes for the same reasons already explained. I don't think what Marelstrom is doing qualifies as discussion, just edit warring. I realize I'm participating in that and I apologize but at least I can justify my changes. I am still seeking outside input to resolve this on-going problem. Eroberer (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose deletion of POV tag

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've asked Gobonobo, who tagged this page with NPOV in July 2010, to review it again. I propose removing the tag mostly because a current editor who is a Ganas resident believes this tag means the dispute is unresolved, or wants to start a new dispute. So I'm asking all editors who were involved with the consensus version arrived at in January 2011 to give their opinion on whether the dispute is resolved to their satisfaction, if not delight. Eroberer (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality-wise, this article has improved considerably since last July. There are still a couple of places where the reader seems to be invited to "connect the dots", implying impropriety without saying it explicitly.

Specifically, the first paragraph of the History section seems to give undue weight to the role that GROW had. I note that while that while the history of GROW might be more appropriate on Mildred Gordon's article, it was blanked from there in January.

The second two paragraphs of the Business and Financial Info section also concern me. There's a lot of detail on revenue and tax returns, but no explanation of why they are significant. Gobonobo ^T ^C 17:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is inviting the reader to connect the dots a bad thing? Or un-neutral? I cannot give any explanation of significance because someone (such as ResidentAnthropologist) will cry original research, synthesis, pov! In such circumstances plain statements of facts will have to suffice, but I'm glad Gobonobo sees considerable improvement. Eroberer (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bad thing. This isn't the place for you to get your point across to "the reader". It's the place for mostly non-involved parties to create a properly referenced, neutral point of view article about something. dm (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebekah Johnson

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[Redacted - LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)]

Not that interesting. You're posting links to perp walk videos with reporters yelling out whatever they feel like. That's not what winds up in the articles afterwards which is what we can use as a referenced source. Look, we get it, you and most of the editors here are connected to Ganas in some way (positive or negative) and care deeply about whatever aspect you care about. But this isnt the right place for you (or any of the SPA's) to get your point (whatever it is) across. dm (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Article locked due to edit warring

Latest comment: 12 years ago59 comments6 people in discussion

The two main contributors to this article both want the same thing - a balanced and accurate article on Ganas. However, as they are locked in an ongoing edit dispute despite a warning, I have locked the article from editing for one week to allow time to cool down. This talkpage will remain open, and the option is there for the main contributors to work together on a solution, though I would suggest a complete break for the week, and I will come back in a week's time to oversee a discussion as to the best way forward. I will, though, echo BelovedFreak's comments, that this is not a topic I have much interest in, nor is it a significant topic, so I do not wish to spend a lot of time working on it. I am prepared to give some of my time to help work toward a solution, but if the main contributors are not willing to co-operate in any way, or prove difficult, or this becomes tiresome and messy, then I will withdraw. Is that understood? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Before you withdraw will you refer the matter to appropriate venue for resolution? I am not getting much response from attempts at dispute resolution, I suspect because most share your and BelovedFreak's sentiments. Would you be able to get other editors involved? From what I have seen Marelstrom rejects any participation from me on principle. Eroberer (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Another vote for more editors! The kind that write paragraphs. --Marelstrom (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of dispute resolution. I don't do much these days because it's very time-consuming; however, I am prepared to help out on this as long as progress is being made. As for venues - this talkpage is the most appropriate. Stuff to bear in mind:

1) It is very common to get heated during Wikipedia content disputes. That is the reason for the break, to give you both a chance to cool down. When we start the discussions on the 9th I want you both to concentrate on the article, and the problems with the article. It is taken as read, that you are both frustrated with each other at the moment and have a lot of built up resentment, but it doesn't help me when you make personal comments - that simply diverts attention from the real issues. I understand the frustrations you are going through (most of us do experience them when editing on Wikipedia!), and my strategy is to type out all the angry personal remarks, then - before pressing Save - I go through what I have written and edit it - cutting out the personal remarks and adjusting the tone so that it is as neutral as possible.

2) I may propose solutions that one or other of you are not happy with. I will listen carefully to objections, but only if there are reasons and explanations. My view is that "I don't like that" is purely an emotional response and carries no weight. Logical discussion and evidence will be treated with respect and considered carefully.

3) I may at times refer to policies, guidelines and Wikipedia essays. Policies have to be followed, guidelines carry a lot of consensus, so there needs to be a well argued rationale for going against guidelines, and essays are advisory and helpful. Policies, etc, are open to interpretation - if necessary I will indicate where I feel the policy is clear, and where it might be open to a different interpretation.

4) I will be expecting a short, clear and helpful explanation from each of you as to what you feel is wrong with the article, and the direction you feel the article should be going in. In this explanation I do not want any mention of the other person, their behaviour or attitude, or any editing problems. It is purely the content of the article that I am interested in.

I will see you on the 9th. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vacation SilkTork. Lately the problem seems to be mostly in the summary and there needs to be an objective decision about what belongs there. I think the summary should reflect the contents of the article, in this case perhaps one sentence representing each of the four sections: history, culture, business and controversy. This was fairly well accomplished in the March 21 version, though it could still use work; specifically BelovedFreak's comment about the shooting appearing in the history section, which I agree is awkward. If the shooting were to appear in the controversy section that would solve several problems, not only in the summary but in the flow of the article as a whole.

The details about how many people started the group, how many it contains now, what the work arrangements are, details about their businesses are all included in the body of the article; don't think they all belong in the summary. They are not the major points of the article, and are somewhat promotional. There seems to be some opinion that because these things appear more "neutral" they provide a better summary; I disagree. There is also much misunderstanding about what neutrality means; I think it means all viewpoints are represented, not anything that could be construed as critical is eliminated.

That's my position in a nutshell, trying to keep it short! Eroberer (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. That is clear and sensible. By the summary I assume you mean the lead. The guidance on the lead section is - WP:Lead, and it does advise, as you say, that the lead should "reflect the contents of the article".

I look forward to hearing from Marelstrom. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Marelstrom has been blocked. A new account, User:Flyswatting, has been created, and has edited this talkpage twice, though I have removed the comments as they are unhelpful personal attacks. It is possible that Flyswatting is Marelstrom. I have left a warning on Flyswatting's talkpage, and if they persist in making personal attacks, then that account will also be blocked. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is written as if someone chose to find as many negative references as they could about Ganas, and sounds like hate propaganda. In particular about certain living persons Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. If you would like to read an article that doesn't focus on negative connotations, try this one: http://brooklynrail.org/2006/05/streets/utopia-has-a-web-site#bio --Flyswatting (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be good if Marelstrom would get themself unblocked or if Flyswatting would state their case so we can get on with it. The Brooklyn Rail piece is referenced several times in the article. It is one of the few (only?) third party descriptions of feedback learning and so is very valuable. Eroberer (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not allowed to state my case. Instead, I'll talk about this:

Facts are strategically pulled from the Brooklyn Rail to represent Ganas in a negative tone. In fact, facts are pulled selectively from all the articles for that purpose, except in the lead and the first paragraph of the history section, as it currently stands. --Flyswatting (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the March 21 version and agree that it provides a clearer and fuller overview than the present version. What objections would Flyswatting have to us using that version as a starting point?
Could Flyswatting explain a bit more about the negative facts being pulled selectively from Brooklyn Rail and other sources. What I would like to see in response to this question is: a) The negative facts in question, b) Why these facts are "selective", and c) What balancing facts there are. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 19:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, are you interested in removing the tag that reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010)"

That does not come about by leaving the article in it's previous state. The article needs to be rewritten from scratch. You are not realizing that the article has been the work of mostly a single editor. It is not a truly cooperative effort. That is my case I am presenting. I am willing to help in the rebuild, but what you ask is for me to rewrite the whole thing, which I don't think is appropriate. If you find the interest, ask yourself what an encyclopedic description of an intentional community would be like, and write a rough draft. I think it would have a section describing the counter-culture details found in sensationalistic articles, but it would not be the main focus of the article. --Flyswatting (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Flyswatting, you really need to stop making general complaints and move to specifics. These POV disputes tend to be difficult at the best of times, but are made impossible if one party simply complains without stating their case. Please understand that I have very clearly got the message that you are not happy with the article, and that you think the article is biased, but what I am looking for is specific evidence of that bias, and your suggestions of how to move forward. I am interested in helping you, and I have allowed your account to remain active in order to hear your side of things. Please take advantage of my patience, but don't abuse it. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, Ganas is a housing cooperative, and made up of individual members, who may or may not be involved in certain activities. However, the Wikipedia article is focused around two members who don't live at Ganas anymore. Until Campoftheamericas and Marelstrom added to the lead and the first paragraph in the history section, no one would have known that there are other co-founders besides Mildred and Jeff. So you may ask: "Why is that?". The answer is, that the article has been written mostly by a single editor. That is my case, and it doesn't help that you complain about the nature of my case. The article could be improved by providing facts about Ganas as a whole, and less about two individual members who no longer live at Ganas.

Also, I'm sure you do not need to be reminded of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, where it says: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." --96.250.214.152 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I must ask for specifics. You say you have BLP concerns, but I am not clear why you have these concerns. Could you point to the statements in the article that are giving you cause for concern. I see there is a citation needed tag next to the statement that Johnson unsuccessfully sued the group. Is that it? You also comment that the article has a focus on two people. If the two people are notable, and the others are not, that would be normal. I am assuming the two people are Jeff Gross, who was shot, and Mildred Gordon who appears from the article to be the main founder of the group, and the provider of the core philosophy. Three other people are mentioned by name in the history section, but I would question why they are named. They do not appear to be mentioned again in the article, and are not themselves notable. The sources linking them to the group are meetup.com and zegg-forum.org. Are these sources WP:RELIABLE?

I note that a particular difference between the current lead, and the one that Eroberer linked to, is the shooting, which isn't mentioned in the lead at the moment. The shooting is covered in two paragraphs in the main body, amounting to approx 20% of the article, so should be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead. If your concern is that the article covers the shooting, then it would be more than appropriate that the shooting is covered, and covered fairly prominently, especially in the lead, as that incident has acquired notability outside of the US, and would be the main point of interest for a reader. Indeed, the only sources which give notability to this article appear to be the New York Times and Sunday Times who cover the shooting. The shooting is what gives this commune its notability, and so the shooting should appear not just in the lead, but in the opening sentence, per WP:BEGINNING: "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." If the commune is notable for some other reason which can be supported by reliable sources, that should be provided, so we can discuss how best to organise the lead. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the media only chooses to cover a topic such as Ganas when it has sensationalistic value. I you do not agree with this statement, then we are not going to arrive at a strong agreement. The shooting, the fraud investigations, the controversy and criticism section are all sensational news. They do not attempt to cover Ganas as-a-historian-would-in-a-documentary. If the only facts available are sensationalistic, then I agree with you that Ganas is not notable, and the Wikipedia article may be deleted. Alternatively, you could use the non-sensational non-subjective facts presented in the news to write a historical observation about Ganas, including an overview of why Ganas got into the news.

From BLP: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced." I don't think Jeff and Mildred are "public figures". I don't think they would have come out in so many articles had they not lived in a commune, which has instant sensationalistic appeal for newspapers. If the shooting is all that is notable, then perhaps you want a small article titled "The shooting at Ganas", with not too much detail, rather than an article about Ganas. Please expand on the ideas of notability and BLP so I better understand Wikipedia's position as they apply to Ganas. --Flyswatting (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The media has covered Ganas before the shooting, ie the Brooklyn Rail piece, Big Love on Staten Island, NYTimes articles. Ganas, including Gordon and Gross were all willing participants in that coverage and were willing to be "public figures" to that extent. Unfortunately we can not pick and choose when we do and do not want to be public figures. And we can not control what the media says about us, though god knows we try. Probably the only thing Ganas would be noted for outside of the shooting is their feedback learning group process, the central "philosophy" and reason for existence. In keeping with SilkTork's comments above, I think that feedback learning and the shooting should be the focus of the article and represented in the lead. I would also agree that there is really nothing written about the other founders, although I think it is clear that the original core group was more than Gross and Gordon. I really don't understand why it's an issue, but a "placeholder" is not appropriate here, and it reads badly. Eroberer (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a responses for you, but before we continue, I would like to hear back from SilkTork --Flyswatting (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile having reliable sources which support the notability of the commune independent of the shooting. It is worth bearing WP:GEOSCOPE in mind, as in general we tend to keep articles on topics which have more than local interest, but delete those whose coverage has been limited to the local media. Are there sources beyond newspapers and tax returns for this commune?

This article - Mildred Gordon (Ganas) - is very questionable. Why is she considered to be notable? Can you find better sources? At the moment her standalone article is saying less about her than can be found in this article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mildred Gordon (Ganas) article can be deleted or de-linked for now if it's distracting, I'd like to focus only on the Ganas article here. SilkTork I don't think there are sources beyond newspapers and tax returns, do you mean books for example? Are you proposing the article focus almost exclusively on the shooting incident? Excluding anything that does not appear in non-US sources? I don't necessarily have a problem with that but I'm certain many others will. Alot of people want this article to be mainly an advertisement for Ganas' businesses, which is what it tends to fill up with in the name of neutrality. Could you please address the question of including feedback learning discussed in the next section? I am trying to pin down exactly what Flyswatting objects to, the discussion is going nowhere fast. Eroberer (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree on lack of notability, and removal of the Ganas article. Also, I would add the following to geoscope: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper --Flyswatting (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree on removal of Ganas article but will agree to removal of Mildred Gordon (Ganas) article if it helps us focus on Ganas article. Eroberer (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that there are reliable sources, I don't think an AfD discussion would agree to delete the article, and if it went up to AfD I would support keeping it. My point is that, at the moment, the better sources and the greater indication of notability is for the shooting, so the shooting would need to be prominent in the article. The question about focus of the article is pertinent, and is worth examining if sources cannot be found to support notability. The first stage, though, is looking for reliable sources which significantly mention the commune as notable distinct from the shooting. I note that the Brooklyn Rail piece was published in the same month as the shooting, but doesn't mention it. That's probably a coincidence. Even though a local media source, it is a reasonable source. Be good to find an academic source which has studied this commune. If the commune and/or Mildred Gordon's philosophy is notable, there will have been some mention of it somewhere. Not everything that is published is online. As you folks are subject specialists, do you have access to publications/journals that deal with these sorts of communes. Or you could approach your local libraries to ask for help - that's what they are there for, and I have found libraries to be very helpful in tracking down sources. The more local the library is to the commune, the more likely they are to have material that might help. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an academic source would be excellent, but I doubt it exists. Give me a week to see what I find. --Flyswatting (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, a commune by definition is income sharing, and only the core group of 10 persons fits that description. As a whole, it is more appropriate to call Ganas an intentional community. IC for short, as in http://directory.ic.org/431/Ganas. --Flyswatting (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Intentional Community is a term that came into vogue in the 1920's. Since 1963 such groups have "collectively" been known as communes. Communes don't "believe" in the concept of private property but I would disagree that they are "by definition" income sharing. This has always been a matter of controversy to those involved in the communities themselves, who don't want to be associated with communism as a political system. This discrepancy is mentioned in the article, and it is worth noting that the majority of sources refer to Ganas as a commune. Eroberer (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Communal is defined as "shared by all members of a community". Only the core group share ownership of the Ganas property, and are income sharing. Other members are more like tenants. There are Intentional Communities called Co-Housings, that DO believe in the concept of private property. --Flyswatting (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said the discrepancy is noted in the article. I'm not sure if any source details exactly who shares what so all we are left with is the fact that the majority of sources refer to Ganas as a commune. This article is about Ganas, not intentional communities, co-housing or anything else. Eroberer (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Some sources:

online university source

Is the "International Co-operative Alliance" a reliable source? Sorry I'm being fastidious. I just want to know before I use it as a source. --65.88.88.78 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say it would be a reliable source on co-operatives - see International Co-operative Alliance. If unsure, ask at WP:RS/N. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a book, but is the same as the online version already used in the article

This is from the FIC. Their website is http://ic.org. Would they be considered a reliable source? --65.88.88.78 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Same as above. see Fellowship for Intentional Community and confirm at WP:RS/N

Book

If you are going to look for books about Ganas, I think your search terms should be the following: ["staten island" ganas community OR commune] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

These books appear to be travelogue-types that repeat press-release type material. Eroberer (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The previous book search is a subset of this search, as it includes book sources that don't mention feedback learning. --96.250.214.152 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is useful to get a range of sources. I would encourage any search that produce results, and urge that more than one search parameter is used to ensure as wide a range of sources as possible - for example, limiting a search to either "Ganas negative" or "Ganas positive" would be inappropriate. We want positive, negative, neutral, academic, casual, travelogue, sensational, etc. We do not pre-select, we summarise encyclopaedicly and neutrally all the significant coverage that the topic has produced, and aim for an appropriate balance. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Library containing four sources

Aside from the newspaper article that has already been used, this Library contains works by Mildred, published by an organization headed by Mildred. It is not WP:RELIABLE. --65.88.88.78 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The articles by Mildred are primary sources I would classify under WP:SPS. They would be useful sources for explaining Feedback Learning with the caveats discussed in WP:SPS, in the same way that Scientology-published material could be used to explain Scientology beliefs. I have questions about how to cite them, as they appear to be only available through a specialized library at USI. How readily available to the public do sources need to be? Eroberer (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on using primary sources with care. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Preference is always given to sources that are in English, are up to date, and are available. But, provided the source conforms to what we understand as reliable, and there is no better alternative, then we do not disallow it because it is awkward to access. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

page of sources

From a very disgruntled ex-ganas member. Don't expect quality sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

These sources are newspaper articles, not "from" any ex-member. Eroberer (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

source needs checking

This is a copy of an earlier edit from Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal by Diane Gilman and Robert Gilman

If the Context Institute is a reliable journal, then I encourage it's use as a source --65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Check at WP:RS/N for Context Institute - though I would be inclined to say it is OK, because the founders both have articles on Wikipedia, and Context Institute is cited by scholars. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that there is enough material out there to support a view that the commune had moderate notability, mainly among those interested in communes, and those living locally to the commune, and that it then attained a wider and larger notability after the shooting incident. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll be searching for reliable sources about Ganas that have come after the shooting. Otherwise it is an indicator that the Ganas community is itself not notable. --Flyswatting (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The local library does not have any sources other than newspaper/magazine articles that have already been covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.78 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the commune has moderate notability mainly among those interested in communes. I am very familiar with the available sources, though not those mentioned above, and I would be shocked if there is any academic investigation of feedback learning. Can we proceed for now as if none exists and if Flyswatting or someone else turns something up we will deal with it then? I'd like to see where SilkTork is headed with this. I'd like to know if SilkTork knows how to access the material at Library containing four sources, must one get this directly from USI? Eroberer (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You needn't apply direct to that library, you can make a note of the sources and apply to your own library. You may already have the sources - I see one is a New York Times article that is already used here. Where am I going? It's a question of sorting out the focus of the article. I would like to see if there is agreement that the community has some notability as a community, though a wider notability comes from the shooting. That would mean that the article should make prominent reference to the shooting, but should also cover the community's history and development, using the sources that can be turned up. It's a question of appropriate balance. Hitler was a decorated soldier in the First World War and was author of Mein Kampf, but the lead paragraph of his article mentions "his central leadership role in the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II and the Holocaust", as those events are of wider notability. I think it is the question of focus and balance that is at the heart of this dispute. If we can get agreement on the focus, then we are making big steps to sorting out the dispute. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SilkTork! I'm glad I came to you for help. Please lead us to getting agreement on the focus of the article. What can we agree on as to the the community's history and development? I definitely think that provides context for the shooting incident at the least, and it would be a mistake to limit the article to the shooting itself. Eroberer (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to queries above. The situation regarding sources doesn't appear to have made progress, as no new sources have been found, so we are in a position that the sources that can be found do indicate that the community has a moderate notability as a community, and a larger one due to the shooting. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't yet look through the 55 book results, as I awaited some feedback from you. I think some time is needed to go through and come to that conclusion. I think this old Wikipedia version has significance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganas&direction=prev&oldid=303441319. It is before either Eroberer or I started editing it. --Flyswatting (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreement on focus

At this point I think it is fair to say that the conflict has centred on the focus of the article. What to include and how to present it. How much detail and what type of detail, etc. There are legitimate concerns regarding who gets named, and why they are named. And concerns regarding the amount of negative or sensational detail. Looking at the sources in the article, and then doing some brief research on sources, it appears that:

The community has some notability in their neighbourhood, and some notability among those who are interested in intentional communities
The community has a wider notability due to the shooting incident

If both parties can agree those two statements, then we can look at what would be an appropriate focus for the article. Eroberer has already indicated agreement, though a formal signing here would be helpful. A simple agree or disagree with a signature is fine. Flyswatting is still doing some research. Seven days to complete the research seems reasonable. I would expect Flyswatting to respond within seven days. After that response we will move forward with the discussion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 07:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The shooting shouldn't be a focus, because Jeff was a victim and is not WP:WELLKNOWN:
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization --Flyswatting (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That leaves finding WP:RELIABLE, notable WP:GEOSCOPE sources about Ganas that were written before or after the shooting to prove the Ganas community is notable outside of the shooting. --Flyswatting (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seven days seems reasonable - that's the time of an AfD. We'll talk again then. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Have we an agreement on the focus? The last comment here was that Flyswatting disagreed, and was going to look for sources that showed that Ganas has notability greater than that afforded by the shooting. If Flyswatting has found sources, please say so. If not, then please agree with the above statements so we can move forward. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Flyswatting made some comments and questions about sources above you may want to look at. Still don't know what he wants to say through them. I'll be happy to move forward with SilkTork if Flyswatting doesn't want to participate. Eroberer (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

New section below. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Communication Styles

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to restore the following to the lead: "Ganas is an urban experiment committed to exploring applications of Feedback Learning,^[1] a group problem-solving process originated by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon.^[2]" Anybody have a problem with that sentence? Eroberer (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That is drawing from only one perspective. "Ganas is founded on the idea to live with a self-selected extended family, learning how to work out the problems that arise when more than a few are sharing resources." Quote from http://nycal.mayfirst.org/node/2558 --Flyswatting (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (copying relevant discussion below): --Flyswatting (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

However Ganas describes itself as, or if they promote open communication or not (much less succeed), is not something quantifiable --Marelstrom (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)