Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Yoism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment #1

Comment. Contrary to Todd DeLucca's assertion below, I suggest that the article be deleted not because the links don't work but rather because the information in the article is not objectively verifiable. There is virtually nothing to be found about Yoism from an unbiased, impartial source. All those wanting to keep the article admit to having something to do with Yoism (see below) and every Google hit that doesn't link back to the "official" website is a blog, an internet discussion forum, or a mirror of Wikipedia. The only impartial reference is a pay-per-view Boston Globe article that could be reporting on a large club or micronation for all I know. Edwardian 07:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Comment #1:
  • Todd DeLuca was responding to your statement that the links don't work and your assumption/conclusion ("Right.") that the claim about a strong response and/or that our site was down because "We've been hacked" was bogus.
  • Be that as it may, the link to the incorporation papers was placed in the article in response to similar questions back in 2003. That along with other changes to the page resulted in settling these very same issues with a "keep" decision.
  • Incorporation is relatively easy compared to obtaining 501(c)(3) status. Have you ever done or been involved with a group that has done that? That's a very detailed, researched project in which you have to present plenty of evidence of your organization's existence, activities, structure, income, control, history, etc. It requires answering many, many questions and detailed followup inquiries after submitting the original application. As noted in the article, we were granted such status in March of 2005 retroactive to 2002. This documentation occurred and was placed in the article after these issues had been resolved (with less evidence) in 2003. I guess I could post the IRS letter confirming such status if that is necessary. (It is a crime to claim such status falsely.)
  • Though I would rather have spent my energy on getting our website back up and not on creating a temporary repository of pages to "relitigate" the issues debated at length in 2003, you can now view the full Boston Globe article
  • I do understand that part of the collateral damage done by the hacker was to set up conditions that led to reasonable doubt about the Yoism article, i.e., Yoism was put into this process in good faith. However, investigation of the page's history would have led to the conclusion that these issues had been examined in great detail before. Rather than assume that the "We've been hacked" page presented bogus information, given the article's history (including its existence for more than two years) this should have been brought up on Yoism's Talk page before initiating this process. Kriegman 13:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment #2

Comment. First of all, I'm sorry that you have to go through this again, but debating whether Yoism should stay or go on its Talk page is quite different than an AFD listing - how many impartial Wikipedians monitor the Yoism Talk page? Secondly, if there is strong world response to Yoism, why does virtually every Google hit link back to the "official" website, a blog, an internet discussion forum, or a mirror of Wikipedia? Where are all the unbiased, impartial sources talking about Yoism or the vast number of Yoans? You claim there are thousands "believe a legitimate claim could be made that the number of Yoans easily exceeds 1,000", but the only impartial reference, a single Boston Globe article, reports that 20-30 show up every Saturday for a meeting. Which begs the questions: Who told them that, and who actually initiated that interview? Edwardian 21:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Further response to corrected version of Comment #2:
This can get hopelessly confusing as the original response to your comment #2 below is only half responsive now that you've crossed out a statement and added a different quotation. Be that as it may, I don't see how you can claim to be trying to be objective when you combine an estimate of 1,000+ (an estimate that was NOT put into the article and was made in the course of this debate only) worldwide and based on responses from all over the world that I have repeatedly said were recent with an article about Yoism describing actual attendance at Boston gatherings two years ago. Even though church attendance is only a fraction of church membership/participation (thus membership/participation was significantly more than the 20-30 figure two years ago), why would you challenge my worldwide estimate of Yoan participation, that I clearly stated was based on recent events, with numbers from a two year old article about "church" attendance in Boston? I just don't see how you can claim to be trying to be fair and yet every comment contains clear misrepresentation of statements or facts. (The other issues, such as "Who told them that" and "who initiated the interview" were responded to in my original response to this comment, just below this.) Kriegman 18:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Original response to Comment #2:
First of all, I didn't say AfD and a talk page were even in the same ball park. I was responding to the clear assumption that the temporary redirection of Yoism links to the "We've been hacked" page could be interpreted to indicate that Yoism is bogus, as evidenced by the quotation you took from that link followed by your expression, "Right." What I said was that, given the fact that we went through this in 2003 and the article has been in the Wikipedia for more than two years, you (and/or Geni) could have gone to the talk page and said, "What's up? This looks bogus to me," before calling for deletion.
Second, the "strong world response" I was referring to was over 14,000 hits and 5 to 7 people/week expressing interest in Yoism and signing up for an email list or looking for a Yoan gathering to attend, and a vast increase in precisely what you noted, i.e., google links to blogs and discussion forums, going from under 2,000 a year ago to over 9,000, before our site went down (now down to under 1,000). The mirror Wikipedia hits are probably still there in that under 1,000 Google count, but, since our site has been down, other hits have diminished along with Yoism's presence on the web. In any case, that was a very strong response for us. I claimed nothing more in terms of world importance. (And everybody, please note, this "claim" was not in the Wikipedia article; it was on the temporary redirect page explaining what was happening and why our site was down.)
These two statements of yours seem to be mischaracterizations of what I said. But the next one, that I claimed there "are thousands of Yoans" (when what I wrote was that a "claim could be made that the number easily exceeds one thousand") seems beyond simple error and seems intentional, or at least revealing an unmistakable bias, carelessness, or both.
Finally, to answer your question, the reporter initiated the article and postponed the writing of it until he or his photographer could attend a gathering where pictures where taken. The whole purpose of having a publication in a reputable news source is that they do not just call you up and ask you to tell them what to write. Kriegman 00:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment #3

Comment. Regarding your first point: I did not propose this article for deletion, nor was I even aware that it existed prior to it being listed on AFD. That is precisely why it really doesn’t matter that you went through this previously in 2003 on its Talk page. The reason someone thought it worth mentioning here is to bring it to the attention of, and get opinions from, impartial Wikipedians. With that in mind, this AFD is interestingly receiving a lot of attention from people who rarely, if ever, edit Wikipedia articles, yet you have the nerve to suggest that there is concerted effort against the article. First, you claimed that someone hacked your website “to set up conditions that led to reasonable doubt about the Yoism article”, then you imply that I intentionally mischaraceterize what you have stated. Hogwash. Feel free to defend Yoism here, but please criticize me on my talk page. Edwardian 04:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Comment #3:
I accept this and agree that you did not place the article here. To the degree that I suggested that you should have acted otherwise in the beginning, I was wrong. But I never suggested that "there is concerted effort against the article." I suggested that you, specifically seemed to repeatedly misinterpret what I was saying, as you are doing again. For example, I never made the absurd claim that "someone hacked [our] website 'to set up conditions that led to reasonable doubt about the Yoism article.'” I said that one of the side effects (i.e., unintended effects) of the hacking (for whatever reason the hacker acted) was that it did set up this additional problem. You have now portrayed me as paranoid and suggesting that there was a conspiracy by the hacker (!) to get someone to put this article up for deletion. Whatever the hacker's motive (whether it was opportunistic to use a server, just malicious nastiness, or an attack on Yoism specifically), I'm sure it had nothing to do with the Wikipedia Yoism article. And I don't know why you mischaracterize what I have stated and whether your mischaracterizations are intentional or not. Both are possibilities. All I know for sure---and the words speak for themselves---is that you repeatedly mischaracterize my words, as you did again here. Kriegman 04:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment #4

Comment. I stand corrected. When you remarked that it seemed to you that I was intentionally mischaracterizing your words, it seemed to me that you were suggesting that there was a concerted effort against the article. Although I thought my indignation would make it clear that I was indeed posting in good faith, I acknowledge from your reply above that it did not. Nonetheless, I am happy to accept that it seems you have left that possibility open. Edwardian 07:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment #5

Comment. RE: “[W]hy would you challenge my worldwide estimate of Yoan participation that I clearly stated was based on recent events with numbers from a two year old article about ‘church’ attendance in Boston?” First of all, my point has been that there should be more impartial references to Yoism if membership/participation is as widespread as you suggest. You seem to think I am debating the number of Yoans here; I am not, because I would consider that putting the cart before the horse. What I am arguing is that thus far only one impartial source has been offered to verify anything regarding Yoism… the Boston Globe article.[The preceding is responded to by Response A below] Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, “Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research.” Before we debate the number of Yoans, we need sources with which to work. Where are they? The fact that you misunderstood my point does not justify your assertion that my “every comment contains clear misrepresentation of statements or facts”.[See Response B below]

Secondly, if we’re going to bitch about who is mischaracterizing whom, let’s look at this more in-depth:

  1. In response to your comment “given the article's history (including its existence for more than two years) this should have been brought up on Yoism's Talk page before initiating this process”, I attempted to explain that there was a good reason why the matter was being discussed in AFD despite it having been discussed on the Talk page. You said “I didn't say AFD and a talk page were even in the same ball park”, then said I seemed to be mischaracterizing your statement. Given that you misunderstood my explanation, there was no mischaracterizing on my part. To your credit, you seemed later to acknowledge this with the statement: “To the degree that I suggested that you should have acted otherwise in the beginning, I was wrong.” [See Response C below]
  2. If Yoism is so well know, as demonstrated by the comment on the webpage “Yoism has been getting a strong response from people all over the world”, I inquired as to why there is a lack of impartial references on the subject. You said “I claimed nothing more in terms of world importance”, then said I seemed to be mischaracterize your statement. Given that I never said that you claimed world importance, it seems that you are mischaracterizing my statement. [See Response D below]
  3. I lost track of your exact estimation of the number of Yoans in all of the lengthy replies and many other figures cited. You said that my error was actually a mischaracterization that “seem[ed] intentional, or at least reveal[ed] an unmistakable bias”. Given that that is not true, it seems that you are mischaracterizing my motivations for posting here. [See Response E below]

If you believe I have misstated a fact or your POV correctly, I would appreciate if you would assume good faith and simply point out the inaccuracy. Instead, you continually chose to go off-topic and openly speculate why you think an inaccurate statement was made without first challenging your own speculations more carefully. I understand that you are a psychologist, but you seem to be a bit reckless in this regards. Let it be known that I have no vested interest in seeing Yoism stay or go, therefore, I have no reason to deliberately mischaracterize your statements. On the other hand, as a prominent member of Yoism you have a vested interest in seeing the article stay, therefore, you have reason to deliberately mischaracterize me as dishonest or biased if I disagree with you.Edwardian 04:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC) [See Response F below]

Response A You are doing it again! I don't need impartial references to make an estimate that I have reasons to believe are true when, I am not proposing that the estimate I am making be placed in the Wikipedia. I never put such a reference in the Wikipedia. I never suggested such an estimate be placed in the Wikipedia. But the way you critique my estimate with Wikipedia standards of evidence clearly suggests otherwise. This is either dishonest or you are being careless in reading and interpreting. What I said was that it was unfair and questionable for you to critique such a worldwide, recent estimate (that I am NOT proposing be put in the Wikipedia and presented to illustrate a different point) with figures of local church attendance in one city from two years earlier. And now you are compounding that misleading critique with yet another!Kriegman 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it is you are who either dishonest or being careless in your reading and interpreting because I never claimed that you were proposing that the estimate be placed in Wikipedia. What I said was this: “[M]y point has been that there should be more impartial references to Yoism if membership/participation is as widespread as you suggest. You seem to think I am debating the number of Yoans here; I am not, because I would consider that putting the cart before the horse. What I am arguing is that thus far only one impartial source has been offered to verify anything regarding Yoism… the Boston Globe article”. In other words, I am not asking for impartial references to document membership. I am asking for impartial references to support the existence of this article per Wikipedia:Verifiability.Edwardian 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Here are your words that I was responding to: "You claim there are thousands, but the only impartial reference, a single Boston Globe article, reports that 20-30 show up every Saturday for a meeting." I have already clarified that I never claimed "there are thousands" (and you corrected the misquote). On reading it again (and again) I can only see a challenge to the truth of my claim that you then use as a springboard to go further and suggest that the existing evidence is insufficient for a Wikipedia article, i.e., that a phenomenon like what we claim Yoism is should have more than one newspaper article or the like. But why would anybody be able to document such numbers in the course of writing a newspaper article? It's spread out all over the world. It is only documentable when people come together in a specific location, and though that is starting to happen (other Yoan gatherings are being organized outside of Boston), they simply haven't reached the size and lasted long enough to generate an interesting news story. Here in Boston, growth was slow as we turned our efforts to developing our meme system and web site. (We were also involved in a huge charitable project that benefited people who did not want to be linked to Yoism. Out of respect for them, we have not mentioned that as evidence of Yoism. I don't think we can expect that to mean anything in this debate over the Yoism article. But I am trying to get you personally to see that the issue may be more complex.) Recent growth in Boston has also been much greater in response to the web site and we can expect further newspaper articles and the like. However, the worldwide numbers have yet to produce photographable phenomena for a local newspaper. So, the numbers I suggested (which, for other readers, I again emphasize were not put into the Wikipedia article itself) are not contradicted by the lack of another newspaper article. And there is other verifiable evidence of Yoism's existence. The 501(c)(3) process is again referenced below. And on the main page, in the bottom section "On Socks and Puppetfests" I describe another valid source of information, one that was used to reach the keep decision two years ago. Kriegman
RE: “On reading it again (and again) I can only see a challenge to the truth of my claim that you then use as a springboard to go further and suggest that the existing evidence is insufficient for a Wikipedia article, i.e., that a phenomenon like what we claim Yoism is should have more than one newspaper article or the like.” I think you will find that I said “[t]here is virtually nothing to be found about Yoism from an unbiased, impartial source” prior to what you perceive to be a challenge to the truth of your claim.Edwardian 04:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Response B Actually, more accurately, I would say that every entry you make contains clearly misleading misrepresentations. They also include some comments that are simply true.
Re: verifiability, there is far more than the Boston Globe, though that should be sufficient for the demonstration that Yoism is real as a local phenomenon in Boston, and this was accepted as sufficient three years ago. However, the web presence and activity is also real. Though it does not demonstrate an event of world importance and Alexa stats are not impressive (though they appear to be based on when our site was down), it clearly is of significant interest to a number of Wikipedia readers. Many, many Wikipedia articles are not based on peer reviewed journals. And enormous numbers of Wikipedia statements are not based on reference to paper printed statements. The first well-developed open source religion is a phenomenon that readers deserve to have access to, if they are interested. Unfortunately, you can't explore our web site to see how developed Yoism is. Though that should change within a week or so, this decision will be made on other evidence. Yet, even the primitive web version we had up three years ago was enough to convince concerned Wikipedians that Yoism was not a joke or a scam and that it was something of significant interest to enough Wikipedia readers to warrant inclusion. That along with the incorporation documents and the Globe article seemed to settle the matter. Now there is also the enormous, detailed scrutiny of the 501(c)(3) process we went through. That is far more thorough than a VfD process; I doubt any of your "micronations" (more than one or two of which have Wikipedia articles) could have passed through that procedure. Kriegman 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)1
First of all, I would say that every entry you make contains clearly misleading misrepresentations. Secondly, if there are impartial sources of information other than the Boston Globe article, where are they?Edwardian 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand that you don't understand what a 501(c)(3) determination is. But that is no reason to ignore my repeated description of a process that exceeds any verification process used by the Wikipedia. You could ask me why I claim it is more validating than Wikipedia verifications. But why would you keep ignoring its existence and claim that there is only the Boston Globe article? In the 501(c)(3) process, you have to prove to the IRS that your organization exists, document who controls the organization, what its aims are, when it was created and by who, where they live, what it has done and plans to do, what its income is and is expected, etc. They then formulate their own determination of whether your org actually works to further the charitable goals it claims to pursue and almost always demand documentation to answer follow up questions that arise in this exhaustive process. You then have to answer detailed followup questions over a period of six months (minimum) to one year or more (typical). It is a criminal offense to falsely answer any of the questions. No Wikipedia process requires so much verification under a threat of perjury for false statements. Having been through this with two very different organizations and seeing the legal fees of nearly $10K in one case and $30K in the other (largely because of all the follow up scrutiny by the IRS) I have some understanding of this process. It is surely OK that you do not. But the 501(c)(3) status we have been given surely is an "impartial source of information" about Yoism's existence and goals. I offered to post the official IRS letter if desired, though it is a crime to claim such status falsely. Kriegman 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Now we have two impartial pieces of information upon which to base the article: the Boston Globe article and the IRS paperwork. Are there others?Edwardian 04:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Response C Yes, I did acknowldege that. This is too confusing to respond to. Your initial comment did have some rather specific conclusions that could have been checked on the talk page before you posted them. But it is true that the VfD process had already started.
Thank you again.Edwardian 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Response D But you left out what preceded my "I claimed nothing more ..." statement that made it clear that I was trying to clarify what I meant by "a strong response." What I clarified can, and did, exist without impartial paper printed references. And this clarified claim was about something I never proposed for inclusion in the Wikipedia. There was a plethora of impartial (positive, negative, and neutral) references and discussions on the Internet supporting my "extra-Wikipedia" claim, i.e., a claim made to illustrate a point in this discussion, NOT made along with a further claim that it had sufficient support for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Kriegman 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If you had to go back to clarify your statement with additional information, then it doesn’t seem reasonable for you to state that I mischaracterized that initial statement. In fact, I never said you were proposing to include any figures in the article. If one were to assert that I did, then that would be a mischaracterization of what I have said.Edwardian 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I truly am unsure about what you are referring to. The "strong response" that was questioned was a statement from a temporary redirect page while yoism.org is down. It was not originally made in this conversation. You took it to mean something it did not and I tried to clarify what it meant. I just can't follow this comment. Kriegman 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Response E I don't think you are trying to be negative. I think from your first comment you had made up your mind and were/are unwilling to reconsider. So you are interpreting things in accord with your original negative impression. That can be done completely without malice and with full conscious belief that you are acting in an unbiased fashion, i.e., that you are not changing your mind because your original impression is still correct. I shouldn't have suggested it might be intentional without knowing you better. Sorry. Kriegman 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Any claim that I am not looking at this matter objectively would be a subjective assertion.Edwardian 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Response F You may find this hard to believe, but my recklessness as a psychologist is less than most ;-) Regarding my vested interest, you are correct about its existence, but I have not been "mischaracterizing" others who have voted for deletion. And I don't know what your "vested interest" is. Surely it is less important to you whether the article stays or goes. But that does not mean you have no vested interest. You have a clear motivation to be here that must be tied to some agenda for you and/or the Wikipedia, and it is hard to imagine an agenda that wouldn't bias a person toward or against deletion, especially in difficult cases. Kriegman 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding “I have not been ‘mischaracterizing’ others who have voted for deletion”: If that is a mealy-mouthed way to state that I have been mischaracterizing you, but that you have not been mischaracterizing me, then that is simply untrue.Edwardian 22:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
"Mealy mouthed?" In any case, what I meant is that several people have voted for deletion, and you are the only one accusing me of mischaracterizing what you have said. So, it may just be me. But then why is it only you that feels mischaracterized by me? Kriegman 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I don’t claim to know what other people feel, but I think I have sufficiently offered my reasons elsewhere on this page. I would love to spend some time talking about what I feel but I can’t afford your fees, so let’s move on. Edwardian 04:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)