Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 Pentagram vs. Five-Point Star

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Case: 2006-07-25 Pentagram vs. Five-Point Star[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information[edit]

Request made by: South Philly 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
Pentagram, Five-pointed star, Star (symbol), Arabic star, unicursal star and Star polygon with a couple more tossed in.
Who's involved?
evrik, Fuzzypeg, Jkelly and South Philly
What's going on?
There is a difference of opinion, going on at Talk:Pentagram. It would be good to read the whole thing as it is fairly long and still complete on that page. It boils down to this:

Why a five-pointed star should be included with pentagram.

  • The article Heptagram#Political incorporates information about the filled in version. but I velieve because of the spiritual references to a pentagram, some editors want to purge anything they see as extraneous.
What would you like to change about that?
This is my preferred version [2].
  • I would like that the information that doesn't have to do with a five-line pentagram remain in the article, or that, the Five-pointed star article be changed to a redirect to a full-article before the information on five-point stars be removed.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
n/a

Mediator response[edit]

I'll take this one. SynergeticMaggot 05:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for Pentagram is a bit long. I'd like to ask that any willing participants in mediation create a seperate header in this case for their own talking points, excluding the requesting party. SynergeticMaggot 05:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone seems to agree that a Five-pointed star article needs to be created, and this is good. Anyone can create the article when they wish, and please limit what you remove from the Pentagram article with respect to other editors who are not invloved in mediation. Yet I do believe a link from the page needs to remain simular to the rhombus and quadrilateral artilces link, as Fuzzypeg pointed out. If this is acceptable to all parties, please say Agree or Disagree under my response. If you disagree, please leave comments in the discussion header. Thanks. SynergeticMaggot 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, kind of. I note that the fundamental issue of whether or not all five-pointed stars are pentagrams (and all six-pointed stars are hexagrams, etc.) remains to be resolved, and I believe this is the crux of the dispute. Creating a new article is not likely to solve this, but will just move the dispute to a new place. I don't quite understand why SouthPhilly and Evrik see it as so desirable to split Five-pointed star out from Star (symbol) to become its own article, however I have no problem with this. I'm also happy for appropriate links to placed within any of these articles, explaining that a pentagram is a special case of a five-pointed star (and similar for hexagram, etc.). 210.55.244.243 05:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, this comment was by Fuzzypeg☻)[reply]
Its really not my place to say which is which (which in this case, might look like I'm taking sides). I'm only here to help everyone to come to a compromise. After reviewing the main concerns, it appears that no one minds there being an article, yet there is some dispute about what constitutes a five pointed star. I suggest going out to the library or your local book stores and searching for information pertaining to the subject. I seriously doubt that anyone will dispute matters that are properly sources using WP:V. SynergeticMaggot 05:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Can we recruit some math majors to give some expertise. --evrik 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Regarding asking mathematicians, I note that common usage of a term does not necessarily match technical mathematical usage. In the case of a "star", the kind of star that does not have crossing lines () is mathematically not generally called a "star" at all, but is rather a particular type of concave decagon. The technical mathematical usages of "star" can be found here (the best math site on the internet) and include star polygons as well as sets of vectors passing through a single point, however please note that none of the definitions given on that page would allow this to be called a star. I suggest it may be worth mentioning the mathematical definitions, although such mention may be better suited to Star (disambiguation) than Star (symbol), since from the article's title we've already established we're talking about symbolic usage; such usage is probably also not so well suited to being mentioned in Five-pointed star if such an article is created, since the mathematical term applies generally to stars of any number of points. I don't mind, however, if anyone wants to mention mathematical terminology in any article — keeping the info to Star (disambiguation) is just a suggestion, and I don't feel strongly about it. For common usage, I believe I've already found reliable sources, however next time I'm at the library I'm happy to check the Oxford English Dictionary (the big one), which together with the Merriam-Webster dictionary (already quoted) should be definitive regarding common use. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm just waiting for South Philly to agree. As far as I can tell, this is inline with his request. Once he agrees, I do believe we can close to case. SynergeticMaggot 08:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree kind of. I think that the way this was all handled was done very poorly. I also have reservations about what' going to happen with the documenst created going forward. I don't want to end up back gere because we can't agree on the pages again. --South Philly 11:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what you disliked about the process? I wouldnt want to close a mediation case if there are unresolved issues. SynergeticMaggot 11:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • all of my comments are on the personal actions of fuzzypeg. I'm going to hold my tongue because I want to be civil. I will be content. --South Philly 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without being able to speak for South Philly or Evrik, I still don't think we've been brought to resolution on what is most fundamental to this case (as evidenced by the case's title), which is the difference between a pentagram and a five-pointed star (and between a hexagram and six-pointed star etc.). I think the most useful thing we can do here is come to agreement on what definition we will accept as authoritative for "star" and for "pentagram". I suggest we accept the combined definitions of the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as being the most authoritative British and North American dictionaries respectively.
Creating a Five-pointed star article is fine, but are we sidelining the issue? I have been unopposed to this right from the start: I said "My suggestion is that Five-pointed star should eventually be articleified, as the most appropriate place for stars like this" and "I have been bold and created Star (symbol), which I think is more useful than Five-pointed star. This could eventually be split into separate articles for five-pointed, six-pointed, etc., however I suggest we wait and see how the material organises itself in that article before we try to split it." (in my comments during the request for deletion discussion). The creation of this article was never contentious for me. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My best advice here is to go with what is policy and WP:MoS. If you can find something that is verifiable discussing any of these points or any other, I see no reason why they should not be included. Is there any way that each of you could create or replicate content that you feel should be included, with citations? If so, create a new header for a paragraph or two, as well as a header for the references to go into. As far as I've seen, there is a need to discuss the content, and no content has been disputed here thus far. SynergeticMaggot 03:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking maybe no one knows that I posted the comment directly above this one, since I'm not the last person to add a comment on this page. Now that I am, I'd like to ask again that any disagreements still remaining be posted here and discussed, if anyone still wishes to proceed with mediation. Thanks SynergeticMaggot 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone disagrees with basing our definitions of Pentagram and Star etc. on dictionary definitions then please speak now. (I haven't been to the library yet for the OED definition). If there's no discussion on it over the next few days I'll take it as accepted. I note that that's also the gist of Jkelly's resolution as an admin, that we should base these articles on the most reputable and significant sources.
Regarding SouthPhilly's comment above about my "personal actions", I would like to remind him that I have been courteous and considerate the whole way through, apart from being rather insistent on seeing references, while he has been quite insulting. I am still waiting for him to apologise and retract his statements about my lack of good faith and my "limited knowledge or understanding". I will not be baited into a slanging match, however. If he has a specific issue to raise about my behaviour, I'm happy to discuss it civilly. Vague statements about "personal actions" I will ignore. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Create an article for Five-pointed star, the remove the 'non-pentagram' information from the Pentagram article. --evrik 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for a Five-pointed star article to be created, as I indicated in the request for deletion for the Five-pointed star redirect, however I created the Star (symbol) stub instead because I considered it an easier article for users to find, and there are several uses of star symbols which are ambivalent as to how many points are used. I have left a comment explaining my choice at Talk:Star (symbol). I suggest that if you want to split the five-point star into its own article, go for it! Just don't confuse it with Pentagram. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we've had this offer here for a while and everyone seems happy with it, so I'm going to proceed with yanking the non-pentagram info from the Pentagram article. I'll mention in the article that a pentagram is a variety of five-pointed star and provide links to Five-pointed star where appropriate. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

First off, I have already summarised the argument as best I can at Talk:Pentagram#Are five-pointed stars pentagrams?, in an attempt to get Evrik and South Philly to explain what their disagreement was. I hope that summary makes things easier to follow.
I am the main party who has been in disagreement with South Philly and Evrik. I have found it very difficult to engage them in meaningful discussion, and have asked repeatedly for them to explain what their disagreement with my position was. I've felt like it's a one-sided conversation, with me trying to guess what their disagreement was, and answer it.
References were supplied early on by these two to MS Encarta, and to the google search, and to Wiktionary. I have commented on these more than once, explaining as clearly as I could why I felt they were less reliable than my sources (outlined in my summary on the talk page, so I won't repeat here). I feel Jkelly's comments under "Resolution" sums things up well.
I need to point out a couple of things regarding "Why a five-pointed star should be included with pentagram" (above): first, the Wiktionary entry has now changed (corrected by me). Second, the etymology given above is incorrect. The correct etymology is penta "five", gram "line": pentagrammon "of five lines". I have mentioned this more than once, and it is even the derivation given in Encarta.
I would like to assure all parties that my interest is not in preserving some spiritual "exclusivity" or anything like that; quite simply the term pentagram means something more specific than five-pointed star. To include all five-pointed stars in the article would be an error akin to including all quadrilaterals in the Rhombus article. It would bloat the article dramatically and is just plain incorrect.
Since Jkelly's "resolution", South Philly has made alterations to the Star (symbol) article asserting that a hexagram is simply a six-point star and a heptagram is simply a seven-point star. These assertions are false for exactly the same reasons I have given regarding the five-point star and the pentagram, and I would appreciate it if the mediator could consider and comment on these assertions too. I have felt (correctly or incorrectly) like my time is being purposely wasted for the sake of some antagonism which I don't completely understand. Regardless of anybody's motives, I don't want to have to repeat this entire process for every possible star polygon! Fuzzypeg☻ 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, regarding the Heptagram#Political material mentioned above, I see most (but not all, to be fair) of this was added to the article recently by Evrik. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's funny you mention that, it's not like you haven't gone around editing things to support your argument. --evrik 15:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to let people know what's been edited. You will have noticed that I've been at pains to point out where I have made an edit as well. This is not about trying to manufacture evidence, or about accusing you of manufacturing evidence; it's about making sure opinions are correctly attributed to their authors. I can't assume a mediator or admin is going to check the edit histories of every page involved. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to say, please be a little more charitable when you try to interpret my motives. I'm sure you've detected annoyance in some of my comments; I have been annoyed at times. I was also a little confrontational early on when you told me "check your dictionary" even though it seemed unlikely to me that you had checked any reputable dictionary yourself. However I have always tried to conduct myself ethically and truthfully in Wikipedia. With this dispute I have been trying to work towards resolution from the start, and have always tried to figure out your point of view and give it due consideration. You've been confrontational too, but I'm still assuming you have a better reason behind your edits than just confrontation. I've seen how active you are on Wikipedia, so I'm wondering whether you simply haven't put the time in to read my comments carefully, and realise that I was actually trying to be reasonable. We have to assume good intentions of each other, or this may never be resolved. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to mend fences, then please help improve the five-point star page and all will be forgiven. ;-) --evrik 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whaaaaaatever... now, seriously, the most obvious improvements that need making on that page are to the discussion about pentagrams, and I'm not going to touch these until I have some confirmation that we're in agreement about definitions. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the page was created, and content merged, I think there is no reason to keep this case open any longer. It was your request South Philly, if you do not have any problems with the result, then there is no reason to keep it open. SynergeticMaggot 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case[edit]

Case closed. Parties seem to be getting on with one another. No new diputesto report after page creation, and no other problems reported or in need of mediation.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25_Pentagram_vs._Five-Point_Star&oldid=1047779306"