Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-09/Tom Van Flandern
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Tom Van Flandern |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb |
| Comment | stalled a while ago |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Tom Van Flandern]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Tom Van Flandern]]
Where's the dispute?[edit]
Altered quotes about an organization are being used in a biographical article to inaccurately infer the beliefs of the subject of the article. Direct quotes from the subject contradict the inferences. Attempts to resolve the amiguity (by restoring the quotes to their unaltered state) been repeatedly edited out, most recently 4 times within a 24 hour span by user 6324. There is a long history of dispute on the page. In the interest of full disclosure I am the subject's son and user 6324 is Tom's most persistent and ad hominem critic. Talk:Tom Van Flandern - Mikevf (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
What's the dispute?[edit]
As entered on the discussion page for Tom Van Flandern in response to the mediator's having found refrences to Dr. Van Flandern believing in Lorentzian Relativity:
- Your original post showed that you had found Dr. Van Flandern did not agree with Relativity, but that he preferred Lorentzian Relativity. The issue is that editor 6324 took liberties to paraphrase the quote from the Natural Philosophy Alliance's website and make it appear that Dr. Van Flandern opposed all relativity. Editor MikeVF's argument was that there was no need to paraphrase the quote and that editor 6324 was being self-serving for doing so. Editor 6324 argued that Dr. Van Flandern rejected any relativity and therefore the paraphrasing should stand. You discovered that Dr. Van Flandern did indeed believe in a relativity, Lorentzian Relativity, confirming editor MikeVF's comments, and proving that the paraphrasing is incorrect. Of course, an editor has no business paraphrasing a quote from a website when the quote can easily be given in the first place - I believe that is wiki policy? For your reference, here is the quote in question directly off the NPA's website (www.worldnpa.org):
- "The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) is devoted mainly to broad-ranging, fully open-minded criticism, at the most fundamental levels , of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology; and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines by much sounder ideas developed with full respect for evidence, logic, and objectivity. Such reforms have long been urgently needed; and yet there is no area of scholarship more stubbornly censorial, and more reluctant to reform itself."
- And here is the paraphrased quote entered by editor 6324 which currently is in the article:
- "..Natural Philosophy Alliance, devoted to "open-minded criticism... of the often irrational and unrealistic doctrines of modern physics and cosmology", especially relativity and quantum physics, "and to the ultimate replacement of these doctrines". He issued newsletters and maintained a website devoted to his ideas, which have not found acceptance within the scientific community."
- You can see that by paraphrasing, editor 6324 has only "saved" about 20 characters of space but has managed to insert ideas that are not representative of the NPA's actual views. As an editor, I believe the paraphrased quote should be replaced with the direct quote from the NPA's website that I have provided above. Again, thank you for mediating this article Akuvar (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)