Talk:Rob Sherman

GA Review

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

Reviewer: User:Great scott (talk · contribs) 11:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well written and adequately sourced.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rob Sherman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511145147/http://www.robsherman.com/ to http://www.robsherman.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Problematic edits

@Holbach Girl: Please explain your edits to this page? Much of your wording changes seem very POV -- for example, you changed the mention of Sherman's support for "same-sex marriage" to "opposition to gender and LGBT discrimination"; you changed the "Atheist advocacy" header to "Civil rights advocacy" (even though the sources say otherwise and although everything in the section involves lawsuits against local governments for religious symbols and other similar cases); and in the introduction you changed "atheist advocacy" to "advocacy of separation of church and state" (even though the sources clearly identify him as an atheist activist -- even he identified himself as "the best known atheist-activist in the Midwest"). Your wording choices are POV and do not conform to what the sources said. And it's not appropriate to cite an opinion article here.

Also, I strongly disagree with your reorganization of the article (which you did without discussing on the talk page even after I objected). This article was organized chronologically, but you moved info that should be in "Early life" section to the "Personal life" section, making the article disjoined in its organization. Much of your edits also make the article much wordier than it was and more than it ought to be. Articles should be as concise as possible.

Also, what was the purpose of this edit summary? You just copied my edit summary. Not only is this snarky (not a good way to cooperate with other editors), but your edit summary is simply false, as your version does not make the article less disjointed and better organized, and nor does it make the article more concise. And then in your next article, you didn't even bother writing an edit summary in response to argue why your version is better. And you haven't bothered to go to the talk page. Please explain. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of my changes should be obvious. I read the sources, and add information to this article. I put in discrimination instead of "same-sex marriage" because that's what was in the newspaper article. Same with describing his advocacy and activism as dealing with the matters of separation of church and state as a civil rights issue. Almost all the sources used on the page say so and explain his activism as "most prominently, but not limited to, the civil rights of atheists, state/church separation". I was just reading his blog just now and even Sherman says "When I first got involved in atheist civil rights advocacy, in 1981, there wasn't much organized opposition to state/church separation other than from American Atheists." He's an atheist of course, but the article did little to explain what his activism was. I added it. I don't understand what you mean by "not appropriate to cite an opinion article". Please explain? The cite is to a piece by a Trib reporter who also does their op-ed. How is that more of an opinion article than any other news piece he writes? I think my version is more logically organized, and I tried to copy the format of other articles. Holbach Girl (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, Eric Zorn's Wikipedia article makes clear that he's "a liberal/progressive op-ed columnist and daily blogger" and gives "a left-of-center perspective" on the news. He shouldn't be cited. Also, as someone who regularly read the Chicago Tribune until a few months ago, I can attest to the fact that he's an opinion columnest and someone who has never (at least during the time I read the Trib) written an objective news article. Besides, the article says it's an opinion article.

Now that I see the Sun-Times article, I notice that you heavily copied the info from the article (see WP:COPYVIO). When I wrote the article, I paraphrased what the article said, and I condensed it. Also, that very same Sun-Times article says that "Mr. Sherman was constantly in the headlines for atheism activism" -- it's clear that he can and should be described as an atheist activist.

And all this is on top of the facts that your reorganization of the article made it unnecessarily disjointed and poorly organized and that your changes made the article unnecessarily wordy. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The page you pointed to has barely two sentences about Zorn, and says nothing about how he must not be cited. Can you point me to a rule on Wiki please? Condensing and leaving out are not the same. I'm certain I saw no mention of the discrimination he was fighting in your version. Also is there a page size limit for Sherman's page?Holbach Girl (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The lawsuit court papers describe Sherman as [1] "Robert I. Sherman is a leading expert on atheist civil rights and one of the most successful and effective atheist civil rights activists in America today. He has won dozens of state/church separation battles in the past twenty years." "Atheist activist" doesn't explain anything, without mentioning what he was an activist for. Holbach Girl (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The info that you added citing the source is worded is a very biased way. "Sherman was consistent in his constitutional church-state activism. He didn't debate God; instead, his challenges were based on the Constitution, which he felt supported the right of nonbelievers not to sponsor religion."? This looks like it was copied right out of Zorn's article -- the op-ed article is a defense of Sherman, so presenting the article as an objective news source blatantly misrepresents the source and violates WP:NPOV. If anything, it should say "According to opinion columnist Eric Zorn, ..." or something like that -- we need to make very clear that the article is an op-ed article whose sole purpose is to support and defend Sherman. The way it is now, it is inappropriate and should be removed, and I don't see how the op-ed article offers anything of value to this article.

About the Writ of Certiorari document (they are not "lawsuit court papers"), those are Sherman's very own court papers -- they were filed by "Rob Sherman Advocacy", and as a Writ of Certiorari, he's arguing for a certain legal position in them -- they're the legal version of op-eds. Of course Rob Sherman is going to describe himself like this. These court papers are not RS, at least in this context.

Per the RSs, Rob Sherman is an atheist activist, something which he made very clear. The article body makes very clear what that means, for the occasional readers who don;t instantly understand what it means. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• The version prior to HolbachGirl's edits was more true to the sources. I have hence reverted until consensus is reached here. Sdmarathe (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay Sdmarathe, I disagree. For example, the sources say he fought discrimination, and didn't mention same sex marriage. Hence I will revert so that the page is true to the sources. Can you give examples please where the text is not true to the sources? Holbach Girl (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I did as 1990'sguy suggested and added Eric Zorn, but I have a question about what he was "defending" Sherman from. Can you explain that please? Holbach Girl (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

About Eric Zorn, thanks for adding that line, but the paragraph is still worded badly. Can you get it down to one sentence and word it in a WP:NPOV way that clearly shows it is Zorn's opinion?

I changed the mention of support for "same-sex marriage" to support for "LGBT rights", and I added "feminism" to that list. Your version of the paragraph was copied right out of the article, and that violates WP:COPYVIO.

And once again, I strongly disagree with your reorganization of the article. As I've stated multiple times, your proposed organization does not improve the article -- it does the opposite, as it makes the article much wordier and is not organized in a reader-friendly way. I reverted once again per WP:BRD. You need consensus to change the article your way, and there is none. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I re-added Zorn's op-ed with better and more concise wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

About your question about Zorn above, the article is clearly intended to praise Sherman -- it defends him from his critics. It is not a neutral source, and its author is an opinion columnist. We need to be very careful about using any sources like that, and we should make clear it's someone's opinion rather than fact. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the current version is better-organized, has no copyright violations, and is more concise, the term "atheist activist" is appropriate to use for him (though I did add "separation of church and state" as well due to your insistence):

• "The office supply dealer turned atheist advocate..."
• "Sherman was an outspoken atheist..."
• "Sherman is an atheist activist known..."
• "Atheist activist Rob Sherman was flying at night...."

This article and the Herald&Review article I listed right above have "separation of church and state" wording. Thus, it is best that we include both, per the sources. That is what I just did. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Holbach Girl: Now that I changed the wording per your criticisms, what objections do you still have? Can you give quotes to justify your positions? Also, please don't WP:EDITWAR -- you need a consensus to change the article from its longstanding version, per WP:CONS. --1990'sguy (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that User:Holbach Girl's reversions are unhelpful and that her proposals don't make the article better. The sources show that "atheist activist" is best to use, even though I find 90s guy's compromise helpful. Edit warring is not the solution, and Holbach Girl should better gain consensus on the talk page first. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

1990'sguy, you linked to a page about editwarring, asking me "please don't". Would it be possible for you to lead by example? I recall that you were the first to "override" my additions to the page, and many times after. When I looked at the history to verify this, I discovered that you created the original version of this page. Does that grant you special privileges over what can be added or deleted? If that is the situation, please link the page that will explain that to me. Per your remarks about the Zorn article, I've carefully reread it and do not see a single instance of "defending" against critics. I also did not see "feminism" mentioned.Holbach Girl (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I added some refs back that were deleted with your last edits.Holbach Girl (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you don't understand -- your proposed version has no consensus, while the old version existed for years. The fact that I created it is irrelevant. You must get a consensus for your new proposal before re-adding it. Also, one other editor prefers the old version. You cannot make changes unilaterally with no support -- they will get reverted, and I am close to reporting you for it.

With "feminism", I was paraphrasing the source. Unlike your proposed version (which has no support or consensus), I am not going to commit copyright violations (see WP:COPYVIO), so I will paraphrase. Fighting "gender and LGBT discrimination" is synonymous with supporting LGBT rights and feminism (I added the feminism link after seeing the opening paragraph, which said it supports equality for men and women).

With Zorn's article, that's ridiculous -- it's an op-ed that defends Sherman. That's clear. We're not going to treat it like an objective journalistic article, because it's clearly not. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I see enough misunderstanding to go around. I have now read all of the pages you linked, also some manual of style pages, and reviewed some sample articles rated as "Good" and "Featured". Now I will do my best to explain what I think you do not understand. Here are examples of your worst misunderstandings: "Get consensus BEFORE making massive changes". I have never made massive changes. My changes have been just a word or two here and a sentence or two there, made over the span of several hours and days. It is you who then makes the "massive change" of erasing all of my many separate improvements with a single edit (not a good way to cooperate with other editors).

Example: "your proposed version has no consensus, while the old version existed for years" and "You must get a consensus for your new proposal". I have never proposed a new version. There is no new proposal. I have only made small improvements and corrections, which I already checked and confirmed that I don't need your permission to add, no matter how long the page has existed in disrepair.

Example: "your wording changes seem very POV". This one I have not heard recently since I showed you the wording changes were right from the source. So you found another reason to object: "you heavily copied the info from the article (see WP:COPYVIO)". I did not. I reused just 4 words from that whole source, and I already checked and confirmed that is not a violation. Here is what the page used to say:

• Sherman's political positions included support for capitalism, same-sex marriage, and climate change advocacy, and he opposed red light cameras.
• I improved it to: Sherman's political positions included support for capitalism, anti-abortion, and fighting climate change, opposition to gender and LGBT discrimination, opposition to red light cameras, which he referred to as a "revenue scam".
• Your source says: On [his website], he promoted capitalism while calling for a fight against climate change. He promised to battle gender and LGBT discrimination, as well as red light cameras, or as he put it, “Revenue Scam Cameras.”

Your source never mentions "Feminism" or climate change "Advocacy", and his campaign website doesn't either, I looked. In what special world does "battling climate change" mean "support for climate change advocacy", and since when is "battling gender discrimination" reduced to support for merely "feminism"? What you call paraphrasing is really changing the meaning of what he said, and that is not allowed. You are injecting your POV.

Example: I see the same POV injection when you describe Zorn's writing as in "support and defense" of Sherman, when he both criticizes and praises Sherman even-handedly (a description of the article made by other writers, not me). I've since discovered Zorn's writing on Sherman has been cited in books (even a Cengage textbook) and he has written nearly two dozen pieces on him, some quite critical, so he should know the subject. I still have a question about what he was "defending" Sherman from. From what critics and from what criticism? Can you explain that please?

Example: You claimed I "reorganized" out of chronological order because I moved his ethnicity and personal beliefs from the "early life" section to the "personal life" section where they belong. The sources are clear that he was Jewish and atheist until the day he died, not just during his "early life". My chronological order is more correct and easier to follow. The Good articles and Featured articles, and the Manuals of Style I looked at agree with my placement of information on death, marriages, religions, ethnicities, personal beliefs or nonbeliefs. I did remove the "Biography" header because it does not make sense when this whole page is a biography. [2]

Example: I sense another misunderstanding, but I can't be sure. I will clear it up in advance just in case. I can't be bullied.

I thought we were making progress. You gave me permission to add Zorn and Roeper quotes to your page. You allowed me to mention church-state separation on your page, just like your sources do. You granted your approval to my mention of Sherman's appearances on the national talk shows. Then you remove obvious facts and my source references, like the fact that Sherman is pro-life. You call my improvements "unnecessarily wordy" and not succinct, but I am not the one who wrote that he moved from Buffalo Grove to Poplar Grove twice on the same page. Now this is getting "wordy" so I'll stop here for now.Holbach Girl (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I just noticed the edit war involving the 3 editors here going on since February 28 til today (March 7). Seeing that no consensus has been reached so far for the new edits or the new wording or rearranging of the article sections (looks like major changes to me), all parties should abstain from making further edits until some sort of consensus is reached on the wording here in the talk page. I am going to revert to the wording that did not have the major changes for now. Settle the disagreements here first before editing again - all of you. Otherwise, it could get worse since it looks like there is danger of violation of 3RR based on the length of this edit war. I recommend everyone provide quotes for what they are trying to edit here and compromise the wording from there. Disruptive editing is frowned upon here in wikipedia. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, the edit war involves 4 editors here, unless Hultzilopochtli1990, 1990'sguy and Ramos1990 are the same editor. I'm getting different names for the same editor depending on where I click. Are you the same person, and playing a trick on me? Anyway, you and Sdmarathe have each edit warred once, with neither offering any specific improvement advice, just one massive edit back to your preferred versions. That leaves me and the owner of this page, 1990'sguy. When I make several separate improvements, he wipes them all away with a single edit, something he started and continues to do. You didn't have consensus to make your massive [3] change, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them.Holbach Girl (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Holbach Girl, this is a major reorganization of the article on top of making many content and wording changes. Read this vs this. This is much more than just changing the wording of some sentences here and there -- these are no small changes.

You said you read all the guidelines -- did you read WP:BRD? You tried to make major changes to the article's organization, content, and wording; I (as well as others) reverted because I don't think your changes are an improvement; so now, we should discuss here. In the eyes of Wikipedia, your version is not necessarily better or worse than the original (which I support), but you need a consensus to change it. You don't have that consensus.

Zorn's article is clearly supportive of Sherman, and your summary of his article is wordy and POV. That's all that matters.

Rob Sherman's atheism was central to his life, which is why the original chronological order is better. Read the articles of people like Martin Luther, etc. You won't see Martin Luther's religious views in the "personal life" section of the article. You say your version is easier to read, but I disagree.

It looked like we were making progress, and I gave into many of your demands (without reorganizing the article, which I strongly oppose), but then you unilaterally (again) changed the article 100% to your favored position. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1990'sguy, you linked to an edit you say is a major reorganization of the article on top of making many content and wording changes. No, that edit is only a reversal of your edit. It shows all changes by everyone, not my changes and improvements, which were smaller and made earlier, and separately. It was your edit [4] that deleted many separate, small article content and organization improvements, without consensus. You have also done this before. Look at the page history and you will see that it was you who started making massive changes. [5] Yes I read the BRD page. It says I should be bold and make positive edits, and I did. Then it says revert an edit if it isn't an improvement, and only if necessary, which you did not do. Instead you reverted ALL my improvements with a blanket excuse, which was absolutely unnecessary. The page also says when reverting, be specific about your reasons, and you didn't do that either. You didn't even give reasons at all for deleting most of my improvements. So why haven't you read the BRD page?

I want to discuss my actual edits with you, so here they are.

1 Changed "stated that he was an atheist since age 9", because he didn't state that. Sources say "he's known he was an atheist since he was 9" and "his stance as an atheist took full form at age 9". I added quote from Sherman to explain.

2 Moved religion-related beliefs sentence and quotation to Personal life from Early life, and explained why before on this page. His atheism was not just Early life, but before and after.

3 clarified ambiguous "atheist advocacy" to more explanatory "advocacy of separation of church and state". Also added what the speech was about, from the source, since it motivated Sherman to activism. Also changed "for what he considered unconstitutional endorsements of religion" to the actual reasons per the cited source, requiring a "duty to God" and a law mandating a moment of "silent prayer or silent reflection".

4 Took out the Biography header because the whole page is a biography. Added a Career header because that is what other good and featured pages have, and jobs like Office supply sales don't look right under Early life.

5 Moved notice of death to the end of Personal life section, where it is found in good and featured articles. Changed "he spent 120 days in prison" to "He was sentenced to 120 days in jail" because that is what the source said, and another source on that page further said he was bailed out early anyway.

6 Replaced "same-sex marriage" and "advocacy", not mentioned in the source, with "opposition to gender and LGBT discrimination" and "fighting climate change" from the source. Changed "removing mentions of "God"" to the actual recognized phrases being removed, as they are identified in the sources and in legal cases. Also, "from United States dollar" is poor grammar.

7 Changed "invites" to "invitations".

8 Made header a subheader of Personal life section, like other articles.

9 Added that he worked as "a teacher, at a bank, on a Good Humor truck, and as an office manager for the French consulate" to Career section, with a Daily Herald source reference. Added short paragraph to Advocacy section, "Sherman was consistent in his constitutional church-state activism. He didn't debate God, instead, his challenges were based on the Constitution, which he felt supported the right of nonbelievers not to sponsor religion. In 1989, when a threat of a legal challenge resulted in the removal of lighted Christian crosses from government property, hundreds of home and business owners responded by erecting lighted crosses on their private property. Sherman called the resulting display "a festival of religious liberty. It proves that people don't need the government to do religion for them." Sourced to Chicago Tribune.

10 Moved American Red Cross volunteer from Personal life to Career. Might be better in an Affiliations section.

11 Changed Early life header to Early life and education, as I see in many other articles.

12 Attributed description of activism to Eric Zorn per 1990'sguy request.

13 Add his pro-life position and noted his atheism and civil rights activism at top of page.

14 Added category for Civil rights activist.

15 Added sentencing information from the source.

I also made the following improvements:

16 Deleted one of two mentions of his volunteer work with Red Cross. Added "conservative" description to his Jewish family background and added a source.

17 Added mention that his wife was Catholic and converted, and mentioned kids, who both played rolls in his activism and added a source.

18 Added mention that he attended Hebrew School to Early life and education section, and added source.

19 Added mention of his siblings, and added his parent's response to his declaration about not believing in God, and added sources.

20 Deleted mention that he moved from Buffalo Grove to Poplar Grove because already mentioned, and mentioned his new home had a runway.

21 Added his home-based businesses to Career section, and added source.

22 I replaced "perennial candidate" with "occasional candidate" and added a source. Existing sources don't use the word "perennial".

23 Added a pointer to wiki article on landmark court case.

24 Fixed date of court decision, which wasn't won until 1963.

25 Categories section shows him dying in 1953 and dying again in 2016, so I corrected, or was there a second coming I don't know about?

26 Rearranged opening paragraph to put his very notable separation of church and state activism ahead of his less notable Green Party election run.

About your comments here, Zorn's article is equal parts critical and complimentary. It mentions his failed runs for political office, calls him vain, flawed, brash, annoying, self-promoting, it condemns his physical altercation with his son. I never summarized this article. I sourced only one small part of it, and took a quote from it, and you have not explained how that is pov. Rob Sherman's atheism was no more or less "central to his life" than his gender, skin color or Jewish ethnicity. Yes he was outspoken about his nonbelief tho, even had an "ATHEIST" tag on his car, and often introduced himself as "the Constitution-thumping atheist Rob Sherman", so it is still mentioned at the top of the article. You implied it wasn't. It was his activism that was central to his life, and much of it focused on the civil rights and Constitutional protections of atheists, as a discriminated minority. Martin Luther doesn't have a Personal life section, and Sherman doesn't have a religious view to put at the top of the page. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

First, you were told more than once not to revert until there was consensus for your changes, but you're not listening to that. You should discuss before adding. Second, I'm not sure at all what your edits are doing because you're making major changes to pretty much everything, and this means you definitely need a talk page consensus. Your edits are confusing. This is unacceptable and you must stop. desmay (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, everyone has been told not to revert without consensus, and here is the first revert without consensus.[6] You'll see that is not my edit. So I listen just fine, thank you oh so very much. You are welcome to discuss before editing, but the owner of this article directed me to a rule page which says "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. When in doubt, edit!" so I'll stay with that. Second, the "major changes" confusing you are not mine. All of my changes are small and minor and self-explanatory. You'll see that I have already listed the 15 improvements above, along with extra reasoning at no additional charge. You just made a "major change" [7] without consensus, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Holbach Girl, I have to disagree with your understanding of how wikipedia functions and also the situation on this article.

For one thing, you introduced many major and bold edits to the article on February 28 [8]. Keep in mind that the previous edit before your major edits was February 3 by User:Clayton Forrester. Secondly, remember that you made a bold move on February 28 and if no other editor had disputed your Feb 28 edits, then there would be no issue. However, the problem is that when you made bold major edits on February 28, another editor (User:1990sguy) disputed your edits and this began the edit war [9]. By looking at the edit history, User:1990'sguy reverted correctly to User:Clayton Forrester February 3 edit - which was the last edit before your edits.

On Wikipedia, you cannot boldly make edits and say that you version is the correct one - especially when your add is exactly what being disputed by another editor!! Once you and User:1990'sguy were in a dispute over your major edits that you introduced on February 28, both of you must reach a consensus in the talk page before making further edits. In looking over this thread in this talk page section, it seems other editors have disagreed with your major edits you have introduced since February 28 and not many have shown support for your major changes. So in you constantly boldly re-adding your edits when you do not have a consensus for your edits, you are actually violating wikipedia policy and provoking an edit war! This can get you in trouble. First convince people here in the talk page, then you may add what is agreed upon in the actual article. Again, your edits are being disputed here not anyone else's (and you have been reverted by 3 editors so far) and it looks like everyone else is just trying to restore the article to the the wording from February 3 before your major bold edits on February 28.

Also since you are already discussing your concerns on this talk page, wait for editors to reply to your points (this may take a few days). Patience is important.

Please note that in wikipedia you are allowed to make bold edits, but once an editor reverts or disputes your bold edit, you must not boldly re-add your edits since this may cause an edit war and disruptive editing. The policy for WP:EDITWAR states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Huitzilopochtli1990, it is clear that we disagree, but not so much. You accuse me "you introduced many major and bold edits to the article on February 28", but you didn't link to any. Because there aren't any. Instead, you linked to an un-revert edit I made, which is all my small, non-major edits I ever made over a month combined. They are all listed and numbered above. Try linking to my actual edits you claim are "major", and provide a reasonable "dispute" for why it should be reverted, as required by wiki rules.

In looking over this thread in this talk page section, it seems only one editor, 1990'sguy, has explained any specific disagreement with any of my edits. No other editor, including you, has explained a disagreement with a specific edit I made. The edit which violated wikipedia policy and provoked an edit war was this [10]. Check the time stamps. That edit undid many improvements without specific reasoning given. An objection was made about one or two edits, and used as a blanket excuse to override all other edits. You say "Also since you are already discussing your concerns on this talk page, wait for editors to reply to your points (this may take a few days). Patience is important." There are at least 15 improvement points listed above, and it has already been a few days, so I'm putting them back per your guidance. There are other points mentioned over a month ago, like the fact the subject is pro-life, with no objection mentioned, so I'm putting them back too. There are more recent fixes, like where you have him categorized as dying in 1953 and dying again in 2016, which is just lame, so I'm putting back the fix until I hear a reason not to from you.

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." You have overridden my contributions at least twice now. Please stop. You didn't have consensus to make your massive [11] change, and didn't suggest fixes or better improvements, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them. I appreciate you trying to tutor me, but for all your words and reverts you haven't suggested a single edit improvement.Holbach Girl (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I already linked to the disputed edits you made in my last comment. Her they are again: here is what you added on February 28 [12] and 1990'sguy reverted your edits on the same day [13]. Since your edits have been disputed, you now have to reach a consensus here for your edits that you are still trying to re-introduce. You have to convince the community of your edit. You cannot say "I have made and improvement" therefore every one agrees it is an improvement. User:1990'sguy and User:Sdmarathe have actually agreed that the article was better written and structured without your edits above so keep in mind that what you see as an improvement does not make it one automatically.

Let me re-quote wikipolicy: WP:EDITWAR states "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making consensus harder to reach. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." This the purpose of a talk page is to resolve differences and reach a consensus to prevent edit warring. User:Sdmarathe, User:Desmay, me, and User:1990'sguy have been adhering to the policy here by seeking consenssu in the talk page first since your edit is disputed as no an improvement in the article.

No one is disputing User:1990'sguy reverts to a previous version of the article which did not have your edits. User:1990'sguy and User:Sdmarathe have actually agreed that the article was better written and structured without your edits. Read their comments above. In fact User:Sdmarathe, User:Desmay, me, and User:1990'sguy have all agreed that you need to reach consensus in the talk page before adding back to the article and in fact if you look at the edit history of the article itself you have been reverted by all 4 editors too [14]. Clearly there is no consensus supporting your edits here from both this talk page and the article history page [15] (see the number of editors that have reverted you).

Clearly you are engaged in an edit war with 4 editors at this point and if anyone of us reports you, you can be blocked for disruptive editing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. You seem to be relatively new, so here is an example of an editor that kept on making edits without reaching consensus on the talk page which resulted in an account block User:CindyRoleder. Constantly re-adding disputed content to an article, without reaching a consensus on the talk page first, fuels edit wars and if one of us reports you will get blocked since you have been warned by 4 editors already.

Also, when I said to be patient, it means you have to wait, not re-add your disputed edit. Normally editors have to give about a weeks time for other editors to respond back. It is courtesy since editors are all busy in real life. So since your last response about content was April 4, you have to wait one week after this to get a reply from either User:1990'sguy and User:Sdmarathe. If after a week, you do not hear back from either editor, then you can be free to add your edit. Please follow wikipedia protocol. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

First I must explain every improvement, so I did. Then I must wait "a few days", so I did. Then I must wait a week, so I did. I don't know what game you are playing at, but I don't like it, and I'm not playing your game anymore. Quite honestly, I believe you are making up rules as you go along. Show me the page that says I must wait one week, while you and the owner of this article go off and edit other pages. So let me repeat some rules back to you: WP:BRD says "if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution." I've waited over a month for some edits, like the addition of his pro-life political position. BRD also says: BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense exists, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle. The owner of this page invoked BRD and then broke all of the BRD rules. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle. You have already reverted at least 3 times, without making a single edit proposal. From WP:Consensus The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. With the exception of the owner of this page, every editor making reverts has given only "I just don't like it" input. You didn't have consensus to make your massive [16] change, and didn't suggest fixes or better improvements, so I am going to revert to the wording that had the improvements. If you see any specific problems with any improvements I have made, please leave me a note about it here and we can discuss how to fix them.Holbach Girl (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I was intending on replying much earlier, but I have a lot of off-wiki work to do, and life has been getting in the way.

I am sure that some of Holbach Girl's edits might be constructive, but her problem is that she mixes those good changes with an overwhelming (to put it mildly) amount of other, unconstructive, changes. Her diffs have so many changes that it's very hard to find what exactly she's changing. I strongly oppose any reorganization of the article, because I and several other editors (including the editor who promoted the article to GA status) found the organization to be good. I don't think the reorganization is appropriate, and I think it lowers the article's quality. I also think that some of Holbach Girl's changes have made the text far more bloated than it need be, and some of the wording is encyclopedic (such as the Eric Zorn stuff). But with changing pretty much the entire article, along with moving paragraphs around, it's hard to see what she's even doing. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If you abandon all of your reorganization changes and post your remaining proposals here first, then we can talk. I will try to look through your diffs and find constructive information, assuming I get the time to dig through. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Every change I have made I have numbered and explained on this page. Can you please give me the number of the "reorganization change" that bothers you, so we are sure to be talking about the same one?Holbach Girl (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not a game. I am not making up the rules. You have not even followed wikipedia protocols very well because WP:BRD clearly states "Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article." The reasonable amount of time clause is what I mentioned to you on my last post above. A weeks time is a reasonable amount of time to give for other editors to respond - people are busy in real life. It looks like you got a response from User:1990'sguy a few hours ago and yet you disobeyed this part of BRD!!!

In fact you have not followed BDR since Febreary 28 which is why 5 editors now have reverted your edits because you have a bad habit of making a comment on the talk page and then immediately making edits on the article - which is what all 4 editors + 1 more editor today, have told you NOT TO DO! All 5 editors have said the same thing: reach a consensus or agreement on this talk page BEFORE making an edit again on the article because your proposed changes to the article are being disputed!!!!!! In other words settle your differences in the Talk page before making edits on the article. In fact WP:BRD states on the process section "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached." It is a simple formula: make and edit. If you get reverted, settle the matter on the talk page and then only after all things are agreed upon, or if the contesting editors abandon the discussion, go back to the article and re-add or adjust your edits. It very simple.

So far me and all other 4 editors have been emphasizing this exact same wikipedia BDR protocol over an over again by the way. We have not deviated from it because this reduces or prevents edit wars.

So why do you insist on making a comment on the talk and then forcing your edits on the article over and over again after being reverted and warned by 5 editors? Obviously all of 5 editors are aware that your edits are disputed so settle it in the talk page before changing anything in the article. It seems User:1990'sguy replied to you a few hours ago and instead of you continuing the negotiation on the talk page, you went ahead a re-added the disputed edit today - can see it in the talk history og and the article history log. This is what will get you in trouble (blocked or punished) and 5 editors have been warning you the exact same way. This does not look good for you and such impatient, disruptive, and tendentious behavior is frowned upon on wikipedia and there will be consequences to it.

Settle your issue here first by reaching a consensus or if no one replies to your comments after a week then you can boldly add your edit back to the article. They snooze, they lose. I WOULD support your edit if such was the case. Just follow wikipedia protocol. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. What part of "I'm not playing your game anymore" escaped your notice? You can't just point me to a rule page and then not follow those same rules yourself. You've reverted many (26 omg!) improvements without providing the required explanations for undoing the improvements, at least three times. Now you have confirmed what I already knew when you admit you will support my edits if no one else objects, that you have no legitimate gripes of your own about my improvements. So please save any future selective quoting of rules to me, as I do not consider them fair representations of the spirit of the rules. Telling ME not to war as YOU revert three times, while you contribute not a single word toward improving the page or helping to refine my edits, tells me where your priorities are. Telling ME to "get consensus!" while you completely ignore the Consensus and BRD rules that tell YOU to stop reverting if you get reverted yourself, and that "common sense" overrides consensus, like when you repeatedly insist on adding to the page that Rob Sherman died in 1953 and then died again in 2016! I don't care if 5 or 50 editors repeatedly insert that erroneous data into the page, Conensus rules say I should remove it based on common sense. No sysop worth her salt will look at those repeated reverts to inserts and be happy with it. Sorry hon, but I'm done with your games.Holbach Girl (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you thought about the fact that your one minor correction was reverted because it's buried underneath a whole blog of massive edits/changes/reorganization? You're completely revamping the article, and you're not seeking consensus for any of your changes. I want to compromise, and I'm sure some of your changes are constructive, but I oppose your reorganization part, and I won't accept all your unilateral changes. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made 27 minor corrections (they are numbered above in this section). I have NOT done any massive "reorganization" or changes, but I am willing to entertain the possibility I am mistaken. Please show me with a link to the massive reorganization or change, and I don't mean a link to many separate and unrelated edits folded into one link and misrepresented by you as a major change. I am also very interested in what you view as my "one minor correction", of the 27 listed above. As you've already seen above, I am also willing to compromise, and will continue to do so, but you need to communicate with me.Holbach Girl (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Just look here. You're moving paragraphs all over the place, adding huge amounts of info, and rearranging the entire article. If you don't consider this a major reorganization, I really don't know what is. Of course I (and several other editors, I will add) had to revert all that. The "minor" edits I'm not that concerned about shouldn't require a complete overhauling of the article in order to add. The "one minor correction" you want to know about is the one you've been specifically mentioning several times -- about the dying in 1953/2016 change. Another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Holbach Girl, you have now been investigated by more than 7 editors and even been reported. I warned you about your disruptive edits leading to further action. Indeed, consensus does not support your edits like I have been saying along with User:EdJohnston and all the other editors who have reverted you. Looks like the admin User:CambridgeBayWeather has reverted to the correct version like all other editor including me have been reverting you for [17]. I have been just an "enforcer" of wikipedia policy because I noticed your very disruptive edits and tried to assist you in learning about wikipedia protocol to give you a better experience without getting this ugly. Now you have editors watching your moves and they will be making sure you stay in line with the protocols I have explained. The are not mine, they are wikipedia policy.

When I say "wait a few days", I am not saying wait for the sake of nothing. You wait for responses from editors to continue the discussion until you reach a consensus (if they abandon the discussion, which did not happen by the way since 1990'sguy responded to you, then you may re-add your edit). One way to see how long one should wait, is by gauging the intensity of the discussion. In your case a weeks time is good enough since it really is an intense debate with lots of changes. Other situations are much simpler so in simpler discussions you can just wait like 3 days or something like that. It depends on the intensity of the discussion involved.

If other editors reply to you and no consensus is reached, you should not re-add your disputed edit like you have been doing so many times. There is a reason why you were reverted by at least 6 editors. You edit does not get accepted as the "default" version into the article just because you put it in. It can be reverted to a version before the edit war to have a clean canvass to reach a consensus over.

Let me repeat WP:BRD states on the process section "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editors should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached." Follow the wikipedia protocol. Once you get reverted for your add go to the talk page and reach a consensus for your add. That is why User:CambridgeBayWeather has reverted your edit back to before the edit war - not what was causing it: your edit!

Also [[WP:CONSENSUS states "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately." You cannot make a bold edit and ignore the talk page discussion. Plus your understanding of "common sense therefore I can force my disputed edit" is absurd and not the WP:Consensus policy says at all. Obviously 2 editors have objected to your content (Sdmarathe and 1990'sguy) so there is no consensus for you added text. You have to persuade others not claim victory and force your disputed edit.

Resolve the issue here in the talk pages or you will get reported again and this time you are highly likely to be blocked for disobeying WP:BRD and misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS. Take the advice User:EdJohnston has given you in hist talk page - me and all other editors have been telling you the exact same thing. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction. I didn't revert to the correct version. I reverted to before the edit war. I make no claims as to knowing which version is correct. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep. That is what I meant - that the correct version was the one before the edit war - before the disruptive edits introduced by User:Holbach Girl which caused the edit war. She needs to persuade other editors at this point since at least 2 editors (Sdmarathe and 1990'sguy) contested her edits. Looks like at least one agreement on one part of the edit has been reached so far below as of today. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Structure / organization / layout

I'm losing track of our discussion higher up on this page, so I'll pick up here on just the matter of "structure". You said "I strongly oppose any reorganization of the article, because I and several other editors (including the editor who promoted the article to GA status) found the organization to be good." Color me totally confused. I have not done any reorganization to speak of. If you think otherwise, please cite the number of the edit (I have listed all of them above for your benefit, with numbers and my logic behind it, pain in the ass tho it was), and explain to me what your criticism of it is. As I said already, I am looking at other good articles and following them as examples as far as accepted structure, but if you feel one layout is superior to another layout, please give me some reasoning other than "I found it to be good". Oh, and I think you should know, I looked all over this page, and the Good Review page for the Sherman page, and I don't see a single word of discussion on layout. What I DID discover was that your reviewer is in wiki-jail for all sorts of crimes. Not your best witness, in my opinion. I am not going to rush you for responses because I can't, but I do see you editing all over the on-wiki lately, so about your off-wiki taking up too much time to work with me - whatever. I'll still be here trying to make improvements. I'm reading up on featured articles, and thinking maybe this could qualify with enough work. But first, we can solve whatever organization problems you have, if you'll explain beyond simple saying you like it or don't like it. I can't even begin to try to fix it if you don't give real details as to what you think is wrong.Holbach Girl (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

First, just take a look at your own diffs -- you're clearly forcing a major reorganization of the article, and that is my main criticism of your edits. I tried twice to incorporate some of your other changes without the layout reorganization or the unnecessary wordiness, but you appear to have no interest in a compromise. You even rejected my revision of the Eric Zorn paragraph, preferring your bloated version that is three times longer.

As I said, about the organization, I think it flows better, and it keeps the content from Zorn's early life all in the same place, rather than some info about his early life in one part and some in the other. I mentioned this above several times -- you appear to have no interest in this.

Also, I showed above that several sources describe Sherman as an "atheist activist". You, however, removed the term entirely from the article. I am open to reaching some compromise on this (assuming you are willing to actually compromise, as well as to keep this on the talk page instead of unilaterally reverting), but the sources do call him an atheist activist. We should keep the term in the article.

You may be "trying to make improvements", but you're doing so with no support from others and in a disruptive way. I chose to step back for now because I am busy (the other edits I made were relatively quick and did not involve drafting long talk page comments, which is very time-consuming for me), as well as to not cause any more unnecessary disruption. Besides, with other editors involved, I didn't see the need to take up even more of my time.

I have given substantive reasons for opposing your edits -- and as I said several times above, I am open to reach a compromise. But how can I do that when you're apparently unwilling to compromise or reach a consensus on the talk page? You're engaging in disruptive editing, and you should stop. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've looked my own edits. I'm the person who made them. Which edit has the "massive reorganization" you keep alleging? I would like to see it, along with your specific objection to it, so that we can fix it. If you think a couple of my edits result in "massive reorganization", then please provide both edit numbers, and specifics about each of those two edits that causes you consternation. This is simple problem solving: identify the problem; develop a solution to the problem; celebrate. If you just point to every edit ever made as a big lump, and say some is good but there is "massive reorganization" hidden in there somewhere, it is not helpful. Holbach Girl (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the organization of the last two layouts and compared them. I think this may help. Old version: [18]

1 Biography
-1.1 Early life
-1.2 Atheist advocacy
-1.3 Political involvement
-1.4 Radio and later career
2 Death
3 Personal life
4 References
5 External links

and newer version: [19]

1 Early life and education
2 Career
-2.1 Civil rights advocacy
-2.2 Political involvement
-2.3 Radio, and later career
3 Personal life
-3.1 Death
4 References
5 External links

I'm not seeing a massive reorganization between them at all. The only organization difference, per my edits numbered 4 and 5 above, is the "Biography" heading was removed as superfluous in a Biography article [20], and the "Death" information was moved with the other "Personal life" information. Otherwise they are identical. So what problem do you see with my edits 4 & 5? Here is what you say: "As I said, about the organization, I think it flows better, and it keeps the content from Zorn's early life all in the same place, rather than some info about his early life in one part and some in the other. I mentioned this above several times -- you appear to have no interest in this."

It is not true that I have no interest, as I responded already above. Let me repeat for you: "You claimed I "reorganized" out of chronological order because I moved his ethnicity and personal beliefs from the "early life" section to the "personal life" section where they belong. The sources are clear that he was Jewish and atheist until the day he died, not just during his "early life". My chronological order is more correct and easier to follow. The Good articles and Featured articles, and the Manuals of Style I looked at agree with my placement of information on death, marriages, religions, ethnicities, personal beliefs or nonbeliefs. I did remove the "Biography" header because it does not make sense when this whole page is a biography." After I explained that over a month ago, you no longer pursued or mentioned the matter until today while the sysops are looking. If you want to resume discussing it now, let's! Can you give me some input on my stated reasoning for these two edits, as in specifics on any further objection? (I'll re-address your comment about "activist" below.)Holbach Girl (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You may not see the organization as being major, but I do. Just take a look at your edits -- you're moving paragraphs up and down all over (no wonder I had to revert). The organization that I support is smoother, and Sherman's beliefs on atheism were (unlke most people) were central to who he was (and WP policy allows for mentioning religion outside the personal life section in the case). Also, see here -- my version does a better job at presenting Sherman's life in chronological order. This is one of my biggest objections to your edits -- if you barely changed anything, as you claimed right above, you should be willing to allow me to have my way on such a puny detail. Also, see this. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You asked me to "just take a look at my edits", but what you linked isn't one of them. What you linked is an un-revert I made of MBlaze's disruptive revert, which is of no help here in identifying the actual edit you are contesting. Can you please show me the specific original edit (not one of the un-reverts of all the edits) where I "moved paragraphs up and down and all over the place"? If it is not edits 4 & 5 as I asked you about in my previous post (and you evaded answering for some reason), then which number is it? You say I "should be able to let you have your way", but how am I supposed to do that when you won't specify the original, singular edit you have a problem with?Holbach Girl (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a problem with edits "4" and "5" -- that's what I have been saying all along. I oppose your reorganization of the article, moving paragraphs around and changing the headers (along with the unnecessarily wordy Eric Zorn text and the intro "atheist and civil rights" wording). I don't need to show an "original, singular edit", since all the reverts show the same thing (reorganization, wordiness, failure to abide by consensus, etc.) -- I could grab any of your reverts to show what I oppose (besides, you continued adding new info after each of your reverts, blatantly going against the consensus process). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You say my un-revert edits show "reorganization, wordiness, failure to abide by consensus, etc." and I disagree. That is why I hoped you could specify the exact edits on layout/organization that you oppose, and now you have, 4 & 5. I'll get to edits about "wordy", "activist" and "Zorn" problems in another section below as I'd really, really like to put the layout/organization to rest first. Are you agreeable to that?

My edits 4 & 5 move only one paragraph, the "death" paragraph, from the Radio career section to the end the personal life section. The only complaints I recall you making about that layout change are "chronological order" and whether it was "easier to read". My edit puts it into chronological order, as Sherman likely got married before he died. My edit also follows other biography articles with that positioning, which also makes it more logical and easier to read. You appeared to agree with me in that you split the "death" paragraph from his career section and you gave it a new header [21], so in compromise I kept the logical chronological order but retained your header [22]. Am I correct that you wish to stay with having his death discussed before his marriage and other personal info?Holbach Girl (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't want any organizational changes from the original version, with the exception of the header split that I made, though I am OK with making the "Death" section a sub-section of the "Biography" section. Also, this version of the Zorn paragraph must be the version we use, if at all. I will not accept yours, since it is way too wordy. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So, to be sure I understand you correctly, you are against my organizational improvements, which are the removal of the unnecessarily obvious "Biography" section title, and the placement of the "death" information in chronological order after other life events like marriage, moving, and court issues, right? And your reasoning for this is the unimproved layout "does a better job at presenting Sherman's life in chronological order" and you think it is "smoother"? Am I right?

The unimproved version is a chronological mess, IMHO. I'll list some examples: Sherman didn't get married after he died, his radio work predates much of his activism instead of being a "later career", he didn't volunteer for the Red Cross after 2016, as you have it. You have him running as a Green in 2016, then going back in time to the 2012 Cook County Green Party, and he moved to Poplar Grove "in the summer of 2016" but then travelled back 18 years to slap his son. Then he moved to Poplar Grove "in the summer of 2016" a second time. Smooth. Moreover, Sherman's lawsuits are not all in order, and there are serious omissions. Your chrono reason doesn't hold true, so I hope you don't mind if I seek other input. See my point?Holbach Girl (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to change the organization, so I think makes for a good compromise to keep it that way. The Zorn paragraph should be completely taken out of the article, since it's just his opinion. I don't like either of the two versions. desmay (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Desmay, I want to improve the organization layout and 1990'sguy wants it to stay the same, so how is keeping it the same a "good compromise"? Or any kind of compromise? I'll answer your "Zorn" comment in the Zorn section below.Holbach Girl (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Activism

1990'sguy says above, "I showed above that several sources describe Sherman as an "atheist activist". You, however, removed the term entirely from the article." First of all, I did not remove the term entirely at all. It is in the summary at the very beginning: "atheist and civil rights activist". We can discuss the merits of making it "civil rights and atheist activist" instead, or "civil rights activist for atheists", which is even more common in sources. I looked closer at the 4 sources you linked to support "atheist activist", and while a couple of them do say "atheist activist", they all go on to explain what activism he was actually "known for", which is what the lead should focus on. Your WGN9 source does say "atheist activist", but says WHAT HE WAS KNOWN FOR was his dealing with the separation of church & state. Your Trib source does say "atheist activist", but KNOWN FOR ... in the Chicago area, particularly in the 1980s and '90s, for filing lawsuits to oppose the use of religious symbols and language by municipalities and school districts. Your Herald review doesn't even describe him as "atheist activist", but instead as an "activist for keeping religious and government affairs separate". That's different. First Trib source says "Sherman was mainly known for his political activism, mainly through legal challenges", not "atheist activism". I would like to discuss in greater detail with you how to properly represent these sources with you.Holbach Girl (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I will accept "civil rights and atheist activist", switching the two terms around. That will make the intent clearer. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Holbach Girl clearly made big changes to the article. Organization is not a big issue for me, but I agree with 1990sguy's argument that the first page organization is better. If guy thinks the organizaton is his biggest problem and HG says its no big deal, going with guy would be a better choice here. ~~

Thank you for your input, we are discussing this very issue in the section just before this one. Can you join that discussion and describe in what way or ways the first organization is "better"?Holbach Girl (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Consistent activism: pro-religious liberty and anti-government involvement as reported by Zorn

The Trib article reads:

He was theologically disengaged. Although other journalists and I often described Sherman as an "atheist," he was never one for discussions about the philosophy of faith, the paradoxes of existence or the logical challenges of Scripture. He didn't want to debate God, he simply wanted to debate the Constitution, which he felt underscored the right of nonbelievers not to sponsor religion.
He was consistent. In 1989, officials in suburban Wauconda responded to Sherman's threat of a lawsuit and removed a pair of lighted Christian crosses that had long stood atop local water towers during the winter holiday season. When hundreds of home and business owners responded by erecting lighted crosses on private property, Sherman hailed the resulting display as "a festival of religious liberty." He added, "It proves that people don't need the government to do religion for them."

My addition to the Sherman page using the Trib source reads:

According to columnist Eric Zorn with the Chicago Tribune, Sherman was consistent in his constitutional church-state activism. He didn't debate God; instead, his challenges were based on the Constitution, which he felt supported the right of nonbelievers not to sponsor religion. In 1989, when a threat of a legal challenge resulted in the removal of lighted Christian crosses from government property, hundreds of home and business owners responded by erecting lighted crosses on their private property. Sherman called the resulting display "a festival of religious liberty. It proves that people don't need the government to do religion for them."

The key points being that his activism wasn't about issues of faith, Scripture or the existence of God, as it is with so many other outspoken atheists. His activism consistently focused instead on the constitutional separation of church and state, while respecting religious liberty for both believers and nonbelievers.

1990'sguy says he changed it to allegedly "better and more concise wording":

Liberal Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn spoke positively of Sherman and his activism, arguing his positions were consistent and adhered to the U.S. Constitution.

The key points in this version being what? Zorn is a "Liberal", Zorn "spoke positively", Zorn "argued" something about Sherman's positions? This wording is not better or concise, and isn't even in the source. Moreover, all the key points I added are completely absent from your "better" version.

The only other person on this page to say anything about this paragraph was Desmay, who says, "The Zorn paragraph should be completely taken out of the article, since it's just his opinion. I don't like either of the two versions." Turns out it isn't "his opinion" after all, and the consensus rule says Desmay's "I don't like" argument "carry no weight whatsoever". So 1990'sguy, as the only person expressing a "legitimate concern" with the information here, will you help me write a real "better and concise" or less "wordy" addition that still presents the key information from the source?Holbach Girl (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing Improvements

This is a list of improvements I have already made to the Sherman page. All of them have been erased or undone, almost all without a "legitimate concern" given for the erasure. My reasons for each edit has been posted on this page for more than a month with no "legitimate concerns" raised about them. So per Consensus rules I am going to add them back, with the exception of the 3 edits still under discussion in the three separate sections just before this one.

1 Changed "stated that he was an atheist since age 9", because he didn't state that. Sources say "he's known he was an atheist since he was 9" and "his stance as an atheist took full form at age 9". I added quote from Sherman to explain.

2 Moved religion-related beliefs sentence and quotation to Personal life from Early life, and explained why before on this page. His atheism was not just Early life, but before and after.

3 clarified ambiguous "atheist advocacy" to more explanatory "advocacy of separation of church and state". Also added what the speech was about, from the source, since it motivated Sherman to activism. Also changed "for what he considered unconstitutional endorsements of religion" to the actual reasons per the cited source, requiring a "duty to God" and a law mandating a moment of "silent prayer or silent reflection".

4 Took out the Biography header because the whole page is a biography, as reasoned here [23]. Added a Career header because that is what other good and featured pages have, and jobs like Office supply sales don't look right under Early life.

5 Moved notice of death to the end of Personal life section, where it is found in good and featured articles. Changed "he spent 120 days in prison" to "He was sentenced to 120 days in jail" because that is what the source said, and another source on that page further said he was bailed out early anyway.

6 Replaced "same-sex marriage" and "advocacy", not mentioned in the source, with "opposition to gender and LGBT discrimination" and "fighting climate change" from the source. Changed "removing mentions of "God"" to the actual recognized phrases being removed, as they are identified in the sources and in legal cases. Also, "from United States dollar" is poor grammar.

7 Changed "invites" to "invitations".

7b Re-added separate header for "death" information, as part of compromise, for 1990'sguy.

8 Made header a subheader of Personal life section, like other articles.

9 Added that he worked as "a teacher, at a bank, on a Good Humor truck, and as an office manager for the French consulate" to Career section, with a Daily Herald source reference. Added short paragraph to Advocacy section, "Sherman was consistent in his constitutional church-state activism. He didn't debate God, instead, his challenges were based on the Constitution, which he felt supported the right of nonbelievers not to sponsor religion. In 1989, when a threat of a legal challenge resulted in the removal of lighted Christian crosses from government property, hundreds of home and business owners responded by erecting lighted crosses on their private property. Sherman called the resulting display "a festival of religious liberty. It proves that people don't need the government to do religion for them." Sourced to Chicago Tribune.

10 Moved American Red Cross volunteer from Personal life to Career. Might be better in an Affiliations section.

11 Changed Early life header to Early life and education, as I see in many other articles.

12 Attributed description of activism to Eric Zorn per 1990'sguy request.

13 Add his pro-life position and noted his atheism and civil rights activism at top of page.

14 Added category for Civil rights activist.

15 Added sentencing information from the source.

16 Deleted one of two mentions of his volunteer work with Red Cross. Added "conservative" description to his Jewish family background and added a source.

17 Added mention that his wife was Catholic and converted, and mentioned kids, who both played rolls in his activism and added a source.

18 Added mention that he attended Hebrew School to Early life and education section, and added source.

19 Added mention of his siblings, and added his parent's response to his declaration about not believing in God, and added sources.

20 Deleted mention that he moved from Buffalo Grove to Poplar Grove because already mentioned, and mentioned his new home had a runway.

21 Added his home-based businesses to Career section, and added source.

22 I replaced "perennial candidate" with "occasional candidate" and added a source. Existing sources don't use the word "perennial".

23 Added a pointer to wiki article on landmark court case.

24 Fixed date of court decision, which wasn't won until 1963.

25 Categories section shows him dying in 1953 and dying again in 2016, so I corrected, or was there a second coming I don't know about?

26 Rearranged opening paragraph to put his very notable separation of church and state activism ahead of his less notable Green Party election run.

27 Added a wiki-link to "Hebrew school" for more information.

28 Added Mr. Sherman to the "Television personalities" category for his TV show.

Holbach Girl (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As I made very clear above, I strongly oppose any re-organization of the article, with the sole exception of changing the "Death" header to level-3 from level-2 (though that organizational change is minor). That crosses off edits #s 2, 4, 5, 8 and 11.

As for #3, many sources have called Sherman an "atheist activist", in addition to "civil rights activist", as I pointed out above. We can add other wording as well (only if it is explicitly stated in the sources, just like the "atheist activist" wording), but we should keep the "atheist advocacy" part. Besides, see my input above in the "Activism" section of the talk page -- are you rejecting my (very simple) compromise?

As for #12 (and #9), we're again just going in circles, since we already discussed this above -- your paragraph of the Zorn op-ed was unnecessarily bloated/wordy and had a POV tone (simply unacceptable for WP, especially considering it's a commentator's view). I proposed a much more concise version that still keeps the op-ed mention in the article and explains Zorn's main point (or we could remove it, as I think Desmay stated above, though I'd rather have a compromise) -- it seems you have rejected my compromise (and for the record, you attributing Zorn's quote was not a compromise -- it was a bare minimum to ensure the paragraph wasn't a total (inherent) violation of WP policy.

As for #20, some wording changes might be necessary, but they discuss two different aspects of this (the mention in the "Personal life" section emphasizes the fact that he was a long-time resident of Buffalo Grove to give a description of Sherman's personal profile -- 32 years when he at least moved away -- while the other mention emphasizes the actual move as part of his biography). The wording could very well be changed, but it's best to mention B.G.-->P.G. in both sections since they have two different points.

To be clear, your "improvement" #16 was actually you correcting a problem you made earlier (look at the version before you started editing, and there's only one mention of the Red Cross).

To be clear, I support #s 7, 13 (though see the "Activism" section above), 14, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, as long as they are made without the reorganizational changes (unlike what you originally did). I could support #s 10, 17, 19, and 21, though I see problems in at least some of those (e.g. naming his children who are not notable, duplicate sources, the awkward standalone quote in #19 that could be trimmed and written better, etc.). There are other edits that I could support assuming the organization isn't changed (#s 1, etc.), though I'd have to look more closely at the sources again, something I don't have time for right now, or only if you re-word them to make them more concise (you made the article too bloated and wordy -- we should be concise). --1990'sguy (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:1953 deaths

At the bottom of the page, we seem to have Category:1953 deaths. Does anyone object to replacing that with Category:1953 births? This obvious fix seems to have got lost in the shuffle. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Yes, and I explicitly supported that change in the discussion above. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)