User talk:Coffeepusher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coffeepusher.
This username is an alternate account of 68.106.183.6.

Once in a while I get logged out without realising it, so that is my normal IP address.

Archive
Archives
1




This user is a member of WikiProject Scientology.
This user thinks you're watching them. Watch other paranormal activity at WikiProject Paranormal.

Contents

[edit] Personal reference

Welcome!

Hello, Coffeepusher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

[edit] Public Sphere

Cirt, I am asking you and another editor to look at a project I am working on, and tell me if it makes sence so far.

I have been editing the Public Sphere for a little while now, and it is heading into a direction that I am happy with, I am about half way through with what I want to do. My problem is that it is a highly specialised page, and that I seem to be the only one editing it (outside of typo correction). It reads well for me, but then again I know the topic matter.

I was wondering if you would be able to look at what I have so far (through the Counterpublic section) and tell me if it makes sence. I am looking for someone who has no experience with public sphere theory, because if the page sounds like gobily gook to them...its a poorly writen page. if you have the time, look it over and tell me what makes sence, and what questions you have about public sphere theory. this would greatly help me in my future edits to the page. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a read-through, message me if I don't get to it in a coupla days. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Sorry I haven't gotten to this yet, I'll try to take a look soon. Cirt (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

[edit] You currently appear to be engaged in an Edit war

This one given after sandy (from post above) recieved the template from me.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alcoholics Anonymous. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.


[edit] L ron hubbard

thank you for the rewrite of the sexual section of cult. unfortunatly as it stands I don't think it belongs in this section. the Church of scientology didn't start untill the publication of Dianetics...which was in 1950, while the plural marrage that you referanced was in 1946. So although he was technacly a paligamist for a year, he wasn't "using his position of power for sexual gratification" as the intro of the section talks about. I am not against the addition of L ron into this section, if a source can be found (There are many rumors about "sex with kids" later in his life...I just havn't found any sources). I personaly think it should be deleted as it stands, what is your opinion?Coffeepusher (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point. That makes this a secondary reference suitable for use after a first tier ref can be found. I found a lead suggesting a source to a first-tier ref in the Corydon and Hubbard, Jr book.
I'll do a 'temporarily delete and save for secondary use when post-1950 ref is found' edit summary. Milo 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The new entry only implys sex... "hot pants" etc, and only gives the same slant on discription that an anti-catholic publication would give to say alter boys (exept they don't ware hot pants, but rather "dresses"). If a solid source or accusation can't be found, I am wondering why L Ron should be included in this section. I understand that it is in vouge to critisise Scientology, but this entery comes from a one page source from a critical publication that is obviously slanted standing beside enterys that have been verifyed by multipal sources with better credibility. If this is the only source fo this information, it is questionable at best.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
My most recent edit was entirely about not biting good-faith-edit newbies. Yes, the entry does not work on topic, as I wrote in my edit summary addressed to the anon. 209.128.98.90 put in the entry and wrote:
"Cult 06:19, 23 April 2008 209.128.98.90 (Re-added line about Hubbard with ref. The reference mentions he was in a plural marriage with 3 of his followers, and that's what this section is about - so please don't remove the reference!)"
Yet 209.128.98.90 had obviously made several serious errors in reading A Piece of Blue Sky, one of which you already had pointed out (that there was no mention of "slept with" in the sexual sense), and there was also no marriage with 3 of his followers. Checking his/her contribs, 209.128.98.90 seems to be making a serious attempt to contribute usefully, though s/he's still what one might call a cub editor. So rather than offend hir by simply removing the material, I rewrote it to match what the ref actually said, and pointed this out to hir in my edit summary:
"Cult 08:08, 23 April 2008 Milomedes (Sexual gratification or plural marriage by leaders: Hi 209.128.98.90 you've provided some good item leads, but you got the Blue Sky ref's facts wrong; see my rewrite for how it doesn't work here.)"
As for the source, I didn't RS vet it because I didn't intend for this entry to be retained long term. It does appear to be a book chapter, and professionally published books about Scientology are particularly well-vetted before publication, as lawsuits and threats of them have been frequent and publicly documented.
The basic principle of Reliable Source, is that the more people who critically examine a manuscript before publication, the more likely it is to be reliable ("Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers..."). Books issued by established for-profit (not vanity) publishers, and authors with at minimum a lack of significant fact-check criticism (check professional reviews archived at Amazon.com), are minimally considered WP:V Reliable Sources. The more experience, credentials, or credibility an author has increase reliability above the minimum.
So I've done my part to be cooperative with 209.128.98.90 by demonstrating a quality-referenced factual rewrite. Since the corrected entry doesn't progress the section subject, how do you think the next step should be handled so that 209.128.98.90 believes hir contribution has been fairly disposed? Milo 05:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I really admire your way of bringing the ip into wikipedia. I have some stuff to learn. The source is evidently reliable (it is cited by many critics, however its publisher is questionable) but as I have stated I belive the entery, as it stands, shouldn't be included (I am gathering you are on the same page right now). I will respect the IP, and send a message to them, directing them to this conversation and ask for their input. when I was a newcomer a well respected member did the same for me, and I appriciated it.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
its been 10 days, and I havn't heard anything from the IP. I propose the section gets deleted, because the only mention of sex is baced on a plural marrage prior to the creation of scientology, and the reast of the entry only imply's sex through well chosen language. If you have any objections I would appriciate your input, otherwise I will go ahead and delete the entry on monday.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We did the proper things, so deleting it is ok with me. Since s/he left a note in their edit summary, you might mention our efforts to discuss it with them in yours. Milo 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Papers (Conversation started on Milo's talk page)

I understand the criteria for external sources. However you may want to reconsider your support for orange papers. I understand that any site that clasifies another group as a cult is contriversial and apt to fail the criteria for reliable sources, and that the inclusion of these voices can be helpfull to the article. But Orange Papers blatently misrepresents studies to push his point of view, and for that reason falls into the...second criteria I think...for links that should not be included. You can also check the Alcoholics Anonymous talk archives #6, where there is a large discussion over inclusion of articles. The "Orange" sub note and some of the discussion that preceded it offers some insight into what happens when you cross check his conclusions to the origional studies. The Cult article is contriversial enough, I think that if we include this link it will damage the credibility of the article itself, especialy when there are reliable sources that are critical of AA that are available.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting editorial problem, and I welcome your input on how to solve it.
The central problem is how to reveal that just like other cult-referred groups, AA has cult apostates, not mere uninvolved critics typical of reliable sources. Orange Papers frequently refers to AA as a cult, "Orange" mentions attending many meetings, and I think shows criticism rising to the level of apostasy. Yet Orange Papers does make an attempt to reference these criticisms, and I formally cited two reliable sources that Orange Papers provided about AA Midtown Group, showing that AA can become locally unpopular (Washington DC meetings booted from churches).
It isn't necessary to endorse Orange's views of AA which are beyond the cult topic. As for disendorsing them at the external link, I did search Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous/Archive_6 but didn't notice much besides a complaint about Orange's website section having someone else's misrepresentative AA study. Maybe I missed it, but the discussion about Orange did not seem pointed or extensive. It seems like it is Lemanski who is being criticised, and that Orange merely cited and followed Lemanski's lead. Is that enough to disendorse the entire large set of Orange Papers?
AA is very important as a lead-featured article counter-example, because it breaks the public's stereotype of what populist cult must be like: a heretical religion, and/or a systematic mind-controlling group exploitation. This is an NPOV breakthrough to years of vaguely-expressed but persistent complaints against Cult's systemic bias against cults. AA may well be the only known group that has been scientifically studied concluding sociological cult status with mind-control features, scientifically studied concluding beneficial membership, yet popular with the cult-disliking public, as well as being a non-fan cult regularly recommended by cult-averse psychological professionals.
I think Cult is becoming somewhat less controversial than it was two or more years ago. This article has become much better referenced, and the subject's difficult-to-explain homonymic conflict over definitions is slowly becoming more understandable. However, controversial articles are typically edited in circles, so this may be a temporary lull during which centrist editors should work together to balance the conflicting POV's in their proportional weights. This provides the best chance for Cult to become non-controversial, if that is possible. Milo 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the inclusion of AA in referance to a cult, and I do believe that we could glean some referances from Orange to encorperate them into the article. However I do not endorce the iclusion of his link, because it is highly selective in what he referances and thus is not a good canditate for external links. you can see a rebuttle at this link for agent orange (it was in archive 6...and I was involved in the argument, so I probably read the conversation differently from an outsider). I understand why you are trying to answer the question "The central problem is how to reveal that just like other cult-referred groups, AA has cult apostates, not mere uninvolved critics typical of reliable sources." but an external link to Agent Orange implys an endorcement of the content...which is why #2 of external links to avoid cautions against including links that distort content. My solution is delete the link, because it dosn't fall under the criteria of good external links. (incert Snowball fallicy in logic argument here)... and the earth spirals into the sun. we can definatly search for a reliable critic, posibly from the Ratonal Recovery website. However the inclusion of unreliable links to prove a point usually takes away from the point beeing made. My takeaway from orange is that since his argument can't be made without distorting figures and studies it appears his conclusions must be wrong, and anyone who uses his figures just don't know how to fact check. now that isn't necisarily the case, but if his arguments are the ones used to prove the point...wellCoffeepusher (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Agent Green link. I didn't notice it at WP:AA archive 6. I find it very helpful.
Agent Green does make your point about Orange's distorting of figures and studies, though accusing Orange of lying strikes me as a distorted charge of hir own. "Orange will not admit that AA has helped a single one of them" isn't lying. Furthermore, Orange does imply an intended commitment to facts per both Orange and Green, and Green compliments Orange's huge amount of reading and thousands of pages website.
I haven't read much of Orange, but based on Green, Orange doesn't seem to have written overt "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". Rather, according to my reading of Green's analysis, Orange seems to have drawn hir own faulted summary conclusions based on poor scholarship of scholarly sources. Green is being harsh on Orange's massive research efforts, since Green agrees "It's hard to find objective opinions, even in the research world" and "AA is simply a tough topic to research".
Of evidence toward cult apostasy, Green discusses how "AA often provokes extreme reactions.", "If AA helps them, they swear by AA for the rest of their lives.", "If AA harms them, they become angry critics.", "Q: Are all AA members abusive cult extremists, like Agent Orange says? A: No. Q: Are some AA members abusive cult extremists? A: Yes.", and "By his obsessive anti-AA stance, Orange may be turning away desperate people whom AA might be able to help."
As I understand it, Wikipedia does allow external links to POV sites for various good reasons (for example the KKK website), and disendorsement of a useful external link is permitted: "Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view."(Wikipedia:External links#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view)
So I suggest a solution to the problem is to link to both Orange and Green, draft like so:
  • The Orange Papers - Massive referenced site keynoted with angry cultic criticism of Alcoholics Anonymous by ex-member "Agent Orange". Some of Orange's conclusions may distort the referenced AA-effectiveness studies.
  • The Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous - "Agent Green's" referenced site strongly disputes Orange Papers' "obsessive anti-AA" conclusions, and that only some members are "abusive cult extremists, like Agent Orange says".
Milo 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I like that pairing. it would frame the contriversy accuratly, and allow people to draw their own conclusions. I have taken care of the edit.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johannes Vermeer

This is an explination for my recent edit. I went through the history of those vandals you where fighting, and came to the conslusion that some may have slipped through. so I found the page that was prior to all that crap and switched it back, only to find that you did a great job (and only one thing was different). long story short, my edit was useless after all, and kutos on your vandal fighting.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Actually, I was wondering what that edit was about.
Happy editing
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)