Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:16, 6 December 2010

	Cooperatives (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives

Urban studies and planning Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Question

Dmadeo what is your investment in this article and what is your relationship to Ganas? We are not satisfied with the article and will make more changes but are willing to discuss.96.255.161.119 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no connection to Ganas, other than I drove by it one day and took a picture of one of the houses. It seems there are several anonymous editors who have a POV in their edits. I'm not sure which if any of them are you. This article as a whole needs a lot of work. dm (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes by Eroberer

Several points:

Gross was shot six times in his own words.

We don't see the relevance of including exact dates of Johnson's residency and the fact is she was evicted by Marshall after court proceeding, not simply "asked" to leave. That is a matter of public record and on file at the court. The reasons for the eviction are in dispute, Johnson claims it was because of her protest of sexual harrassment by Gross and others. Since it is in dispute why not just omit it?

If circumstances of Johnson't exit are relevant it is only fair to mention those of Gross' exit also.

Omitted references to Ganas website and excessive references to their stores, also excessive quoting. We would like to see this article provide a well-rounded picture to those who know nothing of Ganas, that is presumably why they are searching the word. We do not want to see this article become an advertisement for Ganas or their businesses.

Responses from recent editors welcome.Eroberer (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shot at and shot are not synonyms. Three bullets hit six were fired. I am restoring my edits, and we can work from there. Every fact in the article needs to be sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who the "we" you refer to are, and it is not relevant. This is a single use account created to just edit this article. You must abide by Misplaced Pages rules. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Many early reports mis-stated that Gross was shot three times, they were simply wrong. Later reports and Prosecutors at trial state at least five shots struck Gross.Eroberer (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this, or just first hand experience? Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I find no source that confirms definition of ganas as "motivation..." other than Ganas website. Those unfamiliar with Ganas community also wonder what the word means, how it relates to community, why they chose it, etc. They should know the more commonly accepted definition not just community's own interpretation. Eroberer (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed some refrences that don't support the materialEroberer (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Changes

Can we discuss changes here first? I want to make more changes but less work is better. I anticipate disputes but we must discuss. First is definition of Ganas, I have more sources stating Ganas is a commune than intentional community/housing co-op. If you want that definition please cite independant (ie. non-Ganas) sources stating such. Also think Oxford dictionary out-ranks Ganas web site.Eroberer (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ganas took it's name from the use of the word in the movie "Stand and Deliver" which ascribes to the word a more nuanced meaning than it's strict definition. If your goal is to translate the word ganas as strictly as possible, cite the dictionary and be done. If you want to talk about the Ganas Community it seems important to include their intent when choosing that name, to the degree possible.

You probably have more sources calling it a commune than an intentional community because many of those sources are in the tabloid press. By that measure we might believe that Madonna had changed her name to Madge. Intentional community is probably more accurate since commune implies a level of internal socialism that is not true of Ganas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnalalal (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the primary focus of their businesses may be recycling but the primary focus of Ganas is feedback learning, this article should reflect that. I added paragraph to that effect, this is crucial information to know about Ganas. Soon will also add what they say about it.Eroberer (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's doubtful anyone can agree what internal socialism is either, but endless definitions are not the point of Misplaced Pages. Commune is a subset of intentional community hence more specific, and independent observers reporting for "reputable" news sources have used the word commune because that's how they see it. The reporters might not know what they're talking about either but they are at least more independent than those affiliated with Ganas. If Ganas decides what is "true of Ganas" the result is just propaganda and definitely not welcome in Misplaced Pages.Eroberer (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

By "internal socialism" I meant the holding of all property in common and income sharing among all members. Most dictionary definitions of "commune" include this. I believe the FIC refers to this as "egalitarian" which is a word also used in many definitions of "commune" but not of "intentional community". I don't believe there is any support for saying that Ganas is economically structured in that fashion. Several articles refer to people paying rent. Using the facts available in the sources cited here I believe that the use of the phrase "intentional community" is more supportable than the word "commune" and more factually accurate. Your mileage may vary. 96.250.224.221 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Eroberer, its obvious that you have deep feelings about Ganas, which is just one article here, do you feel there might be WP:COI? (pls read this carefully) Why dont you list out in outline form what points youd like to make, trying to keep it as WP:NPOV as possible. The goal is to find out what we can describe factually about the place/group/whatever, and then in the more controversial parts, point out the differing points of view. It is fair to point out what the group calls itself, and depending on the context and WP:RS, highlight that others disagree. dm (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

dm I think there is WP:COI on all sides but I will work on it. That's what I'd like to work out on this page rather than the back and forth editing.Eroberer (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I disclosed my connection to Ganas above, I dont have one, other than I drove by and took a picture and that I read about it in the press. To my knowledge, I've never met anyone who lived there. So, what conflict of interest do you think I have? What COI might you have, since you've mostly (only?) edited articles about Ganas or people connected to Ganas. dm (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what connection do you have, Eroberer? The-one-who-cannot-be-named responds: Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

dm I wasn't referring just to you. I am working on what you suggested, will post it soon here. Also see next section.Eroberer (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Core people and tenants

This is maybe a little confusing: "The community was founded in 1979 and consists of a core-group of a dozen partners." It should perhaps continue "and about 70 other individuals who live there." Or something. The current text makes it sound like only a dozen people live in those 8 houses while the information box lists 80-90 members. 96.250.224.221 (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I had the same concern and fixed it, but Eroberer undid it in these changes dm (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

dm I didn't mean to undo your fix so I re-did it.Eroberer (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

meaning of "ganas" in Spanish

I just tried to improve the stuff about the Spanish word "ganas", but Eroberer reverted it. The current version is bad because it refers to the verb "ganar", which is basically irrelevant. I'm sensing a desire not to take the community's word for things, which I can relate to, but in this instance it isn't justified. Since any Spanish speaker can clarify the situation, I don't even think it's necessary to cite a specific dictionary.

The central issue is that "ganas", as a Spanish word, has two meanings. It's a conjugation of the verb "ganar", to be sure, but it's also the plural form of the noun "gana". One translation of gana is "will", as in "the will to do something". Colloquially, the plural is often used where English would use a singular.

The community's name is related to the noun, not the verb, and the community's definition "motivation sufficient to act" is essentially accurate. So I'd propose to rewrite the section to refer (only) to the noun definition, and remove the suggestion that the community is mistaken about the meaning of the word.

Eroberer, are you available for comment? I'd think the most efficient resolution would be if you could rewrite the paragraph based on the information I've provided. If not, I can edit it myself in a few days. --Jeremy

Any Spanish speaker cannot clarify and I've asked many, anyway why rely on their authority? It's an ambiguous term, shrouded in mystery like the commune itself. The commune says they took their name from the movie "Stand and Deliver" but the definition is never made clear in that movie either, it's not known if it refers to noun or verb. Some spanish speakers have said it is used colloquially to mean "huevos" or "balls", see , which could also apply to the movie along with all the other definitions. I don't think there's any suggestion that the commune is mistaken about the definition, but to me the real point of the matter is that the commune chose to "reveal" itself through such an ambiguous term, they did it for a reason, and they cannot control the meanings of words after the fact. That's what I think should be reflected in this article, not by eliminating "irrelevant" definitions because the ambiguity itself is what's relevant. It's a moot point but if you want to rewrite it remember NPOV means all views are represented, not this or that editor decides which is "relevant".Eroberer (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I found it informative. How about something like this: Ganas states that their name is a Spanish word meaning "motivation sufficient to act". Strictly speaking, "ganas" has multiple meanings. As a noun, it appears in many colloquial expressions and is difficult to translate. The Espasa Calpe Spanish-English dictionary lists "wish", "will", or "appetite" as possible translations. It is also a conjugation of the verb "ganar", which means "to win" or "to earn". --Jeremy 10/6/09

I like: Ganas states that their name is a Spanish word meaning "motivation sufficient to act". In fact, "ganas" has multiple meanings. As a noun, it appears in many colloquial expressions and is difficult to translate. The Espasa Calpe Spanish-English dictionary lists "wish", "will", or "appetite" as possible translations, while the Oxford Spanish-English dictionary defines ganas as a conjugation of the verb "ganar" meaning "to earn","to gain" or "to win". I think that's a good compromise.Eroberer (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we're getting close. But I find your version a bit strange/misleading in two ways. I prefer "strictly speaking" to "in fact" because it acknowledges that we're being pedantic rather than pointing out a contradiction. Also, your version suggests that the two dictionaries disagree when they don't. Both contain noun and verb forms. Certainly I'm happy to include "to gain" among the verb translations. Thoughts? --Jeremy 10/8/09

The whole thing is pedantic, why is it so important to you if contradictions appear to exist? Contradictions are the point. What are the Espasa definitions of the verb form? If you want to cite just one dictionary Oxford should be it, hands down the most widely used and accepted. Do you plan to disassemble every other sentence in this article also? With Ganas there's plenty of controversy to go around, what is so crucial about their name?Eroberer (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Espasa lists "earn", "win", beat", "reach", and "improve" for the verb. I'd also rather just use Oxford. But the online version doesn't seem to give translations for the noun, only examples of usage.

My personal motivations would be hard to explain succinctly. Rest assured that I have no current plan to engage with the rest of the article at this level. I recently visited Ganas for two weeks. During that visit, I made a comment about the name that I intended as offhand or even humorous, but it elicited a reaction that I didn't expect. That's how I became connected to the name question. For me it's not clear that contradictions are the point; maybe I'm interested in the name precisely because it doesn't seem all that mysterious. I'd be interested in your motivations, if you're inclined to share. --Jeremy 10/8/09

That's interesting, will you tell me what the comment was and the reaction, and why it surprised you? The founder of Ganas has an extensive history of fraud in the mental health field, the entire "feedback learning" pseudoscience is the heart of the controversy surrounding Ganas, it's behavior modification being practiced by dilettantes IMO. I'm not hugely interested in the name I just think it's revealing of their personality in that it's open to interpretation, which I don't think was accidental, and yet they still seek to control that interpretation, as you seem to have found out for yourself. I'd be interested in hearing more about your experience at Ganas, maybe on my talk page instead of here. As for the article...how about As both a noun and a verb it appears in many colloquial expressions and is difficult to translate. The Espasa Calpe Spanish-English dictionary lists "wish", "will", or "appetite" as possible translations of the noun, and "earn", "win", or "beat" as translations of the verb form.Eroberer (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's strong language! Even if that's all true, how does it constitute fraud? I'm not opposed to sharing my experience but it seems best to clarify this accusation first. I'd personally rather live in a world where people can try interpersonal experiments without a special license. (I've been playing around with my own theories about communication and honesty, but definitely as a dilettante.) However, I can also see the potential for harm. As for the article, I still think the noun is more relevant than the verb (and I'm not sure the verb is unusually hard to translate). --Jeremy 10/11/09

I'm not sure what you mean by accusation and what constitutes fraud...by "history of fraud" I'm referring specifically to this: . It's not clear to me that any interpersonal experiments going on at Ganas are voluntary, despite their disclaimers feedback learning appears to be mandatory. Also check out the Webster's online dictionary at ...ganas has meanings in other languages, I'd definitely be interested in the etymology of that word and how it relates to Indonesia. Are you a Spanish speaker?Eroberer (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I learned a few things, but don't see how those articles establish "fraud" on Mildred's part. Unless I missed something, she's only mentioned in one of the articles. And that one ("Six at School Lack Accredited Degrees") says her husband is the founder of GROW and that he's the one who uses a dubious "Dr." in his title. Do you find the summary at the top of the web page to be accurate?

Living at Ganas is voluntary, no? I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable for a community to require participation in its experimental communication process.

What I'm trying to say about the word "ganas" is that I think it's basically clear that the community is referring to the Spanish noun, and that a "normal" encyclopedia would basically accept that rather than giving equal attention to other parts of speech and other languages. Compare, say, the discussion of how Intel Corporation was named (it doesn't talk about other meanings of the word "intel").

I speak some Spanish...enough to take one Spanish literature class in college. I lived in Ecuador for about a month. --Jeremy 10/12/09

WOW I cannot believe you are trying to insulate Mildred Gordon from a fraud investigation by the NY ATTORNEY GENERAL. Mildred co-founded GROW (see ), she was the ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR of GROW, they called her the "high priestess"! She was GROW, an unaccredited therapy school that was under investigation for FRAUD by the NY Attorney General, Dept. of Consumer Affairs, and NYS Psychological Association, what do you think that means???

Yeah you missed some things - like GROW's connection to Indiana Northern University, through which GROW was basically SELLING PHONY PhD. degrees to paying students motivated by career upward mobility, who then used those phony credentials to establish all kinds of crazy and unregulated therapy businessess that were unltimately proved fraudulent, harmful and exploitative. You don't think Mildred & Ed knew about, encouraged, or were responsible for that? Was all this done for money? WHAT DO YOU THINK??? GROW was a CAPITAL STOCK corporation (as Ganas claims to be) trying to set up a FRANCHISE chain business of group therapy clinics staffed by GROW graduates with phony credentials obtained through GROW!!! It was a PYRAMID SCHEME for gods sake!!! You don't see how that establishes FRAUD on Mildred's part, c'mon guy, DO THE MATH!!! Or don't, whatever...I'm not going to argue about it.

I understand what you're saying about the word/name and Ganas' own definition is clearly given preference by being cited first. And I think that preference is ENOUGH. I propose this re-write: Ganas states that their name comes from the Spanish word "ganas" as it is used in the movie "Stand and Deliver", which they interpret as "motivation strong enough for action". As both a noun and a verb "ganas" appears in many colloquial expressions and is difficult to translate. The Espasa Calpe Spanish-English dictionary lists "wish", "will", or "appetite" as possible translations of the noun, and "earn", "win", or "beat" as translations of the verb form. "Ganas" also appears in some Malayo-Polynesian languages where it translates as "appetite", "violent" or "ferocious".

It's interesting that Chamorro is a Malayo-Polynesian language that defines ganas as "appetite", pretty much analagous to "desire"; while Malay, which is also within the Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian language family, defines it as "violent". Maybe the ultimate definition is "violent appetite" or "violent desire". ALL the above definitions apply to the Ganas community in my experience and since Ganas' own definition comes first I see no harm in including all these definitions in the article, again for the erudition of readers who know nothing of the word to begin with, as it is, after all, obscure.Eroberer (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New Changes

Trying to make this page a true reflection of Ganas and not just advertisement for their stores. So removed excess references and links to stores, also think categorization was completely irrelevant. Removed "resource cooperative" because source does not mention that. Tried to make first paragraph the main points about Ganas, from perspective of someone with absolutely no knowledge about it. In other words; feedback learning, commune, rules against negativity, group marriage, experimental lifestyle, are all things a complete stranger would want to know about Ganas. Also moved name definition as it doesn't merit its own section.

Changed Shooting section to Controversy section which is broader. Tried to explain reasons for controversy and connect the dots between shooting, experimental therapy (or non-therapy), unlicensed fraudulent psychology, etc. Think these are VERY important aspects of Ganas that MUST be included, not swept under the carpet. Every statement is backed up with source material.Eroberer (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This article comes across as an attack against the organization so I've added a neutrality tag. While I can see that there are a host of unpleasant aspects that ought to be included here, I don't see any attempt at maintaining a neutral point of view. Gobonobo 00:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been living at Ganas for the last 8 months. Would I be biased because I live at Ganas?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased or otherwise you can't just make statements that have no source. Every reference should be from a published book or article, not personal websites which includes that of Ganas. This is to ensure an article is objective and well-rounded, not just the viewpoint of those biased either way. Misplaced Pages is not the place to express personal experience or opinion.Eroberer (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) some of your references are blogs

(2) you can take quotes from good references, and use them out of context

(3) the article has a biased tag, so it should change

(4) i'm stating facts, not opinions

--Campoftheamericas (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your "facts" still have no documented source. Which references are blogs? The article has a disputed neutrality tag, not a bias tag. I don't see how your undocumented changes are a positive change.Eroberer (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I want to work on references. What will you do then? There's no such thing as bad publicity! Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to contribute your own documented material please do so without blanking out the work of others. What you are doing amounts to vandalism, if necessary I'll seek protection. Please review Wiki Guidelines regarding blanking, neutrality, conflict of interest, references, etc. etc. etc.

This is not the place to argue what is or is not a commune, you can argue that in the commune article. Accurate or not, almost every source refers to Ganas as a commune because that's the popular perception, and that's the point. Heidi Singer is a professional journalist and her article is not original research according to Wiki guidelines, please review them as well. If you disagree with something add a refutation as long as it has a documented, verifiable source, do not just replace other perspectives with your own. The point is to represent all viewpoints, as long as they are verifiable and relevant.Eroberer (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What is your interest in this article?--Campoftheamericas (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Campoftheamericas I've asked you several times to please stop deleting material. If you will notice I have twice made an effort to include your material, though I don't understand what your issues are. What are they? If you have something to say about Ganas say it and document it. It appears you want to refute what I am saying by saying nothing at all, ie deleting most everything.

For instance, I don't see how the core group growing from 6 to 10 or 12 contributes to an understanding of what Ganas is. It's a very minor, and I think irrelevant, point. If you want to emphasize that not all Ganas members are income sharing, as you can see I've done that without eliminating the point that they are widely perceived as a commune. It appears you simply want to eliminate any association with commune, instead of adding an alternative viewpoint. Also the whole issue of meaning of Ganas has been discussed exhaustively above. Add your definition instead of eliminating mine.

These are very minor points and nothing worth warring over but it appears you have extensive issues. Will you discuss them here and negotiate editing here instead of wholesale deleting?Eroberer (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-negotiable deletion

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

CampoftheAmericas has requested arbitration over this article. The main issue seems to be CampoftheAmericas wants to achieve NPOV by deleting all of my contribution to the summary and replacing it with material from Ganas website, instead of adding his own independently referenced material to mine.Eroberer (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CampoftheAmericas is apparently not willing to discuss the deletions he repeatedly makes. I moved 6 original members to history section. Restored connection to FIC and definition of name, added citation. What is the meaning of the word ganas is the third most popular return for Google search of Ganas. It's something people want to know and merits inclusion. Likewise public perception as commune and cult accusations, and even more. As discussed above, I see no reason to make summary paragraph unduly short, rather it should reflect the most noteworthy points. CampoftheAmericas contributions still lack citations.

Will another editor please offer their opinion of CampoftheAmericas constant deletions, and the article as a whole?Eroberer (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please raise your request on Third opinion. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If Ganas uses another definition add it don't delete others. Don't see how inclusion in FIC is controversial. Information about stores repeated, does not belong in summary. Using Ganas website as reference should be done sparingly and only when necessary, ie to cite something they themselves have said. It is not independent corroboration, and summary should not consist completely of the web material, if at all. Again, this article should provide the most noteworthy aspects of Ganas to someone who has no knowledge of them, not be a deceptive advertisement for their commune or businesses.Eroberer (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since CampoftheAmericas refuses to discuss anything I don't see any point in continuing to explain my changes.Eroberer (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

These are the issues:

Please look at the POV before Eroberer's first edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&oldid=303426567
Please look at the POV as Eroberer left the article in August:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&oldid=381924516

Please look at all of Eroberer's edits: most if not all, are about Ganas or members of Ganas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Eroberer
You will find that most if not all her edits lead to an attack of the subjects in the Wiki-articles.

Eroberer continues to try to set a negative POV, changing my attempts towards a neutral POV. (Campoftheamericas and 98.116.147.84, when I forget to log in):
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&limit=100&action=history

The following are example diffs

-- diff change from Eroberer to Campoftheamericas:
This edit was in part to point out the random nature of the quote "history of group marriage and safe sex groups" grabbed from cite=freelove, and backed up by the other references. I simply took another quote from the cite=freelove reference, that was also backed up by the same other references as well! Instant POV change! Doesn't change the tabloid nature of the references.
Also, Ganas as an intentional community, is not strictly a commune, as this would require that all members be as involved as the minority core group. If it is important to say that the public media calls it a commune, it should be mentioned in the controversy section, or it should be mentioned that, factually, it is a commune of 10 persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&action=historysubmit&diff=395003535&oldid=394583897

-- diff change from Campoftheamericas to Eroberer:
Recommend to read the cited article, as it sounds like it comes from The National Enquirer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&action=historysubmit&diff=394583897&oldid=394523119

Was founded by 6 persons, and GREW to become a dozen persons in the core group, and 70-90 non-core group members, as stated in the Ganas.org website, and other sources. Eroberer has changed this to be more confusing at least three times. Also, Eroberer is including topics in the summary that belong in the Controversy section (see my edit comments):
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&action=historysubmit&diff=395094933&oldid=395003535

Summary deleted by Eroberer (sourced from Ganas website). Also Eroberer at least three times continues to put an irrelevant meaning of the Spanish word ganas. The meaning used by Ganas members is "tener ganas" http://www.braser.com/learn%20spanish%20blog/spanish-expression-tener-ganas.html (see my edit comments):
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&action=historysubmit&diff=395739135&oldid=395647824

-- Campoftheamericas individual changes to content created solely by Eroberer
Speculation? Opinion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395270688&oldid=395270499
As mentioned above, only 6 members when founded:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=394615397&oldid=394588645
As mentioned above, improper commune label:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395003535&oldid=394615397
Improved description of distinguishing factors from commune label:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395270060&oldid=395269132
A random quote from one member does not belong in the summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395270326&oldid=395270060
I can understand some are not familiar with Spanish, but it's helpful if you want to create a negative POV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395270499&oldid=395270326
At this point, Eroberer complains that I am blanking material. What material?
Must learn Spanish, provided link to definition of "tener ganas" once again in the edit notes
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395620135&oldid=395619778
while I have heard Mildred was the informal head of Ganas, a citation is needed for that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395634430&oldid=395632827
Neither does the Ganas website ASSERT, nor does the website mention "no one is forced", nor does the website mention Feedback Learning
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395773866&oldid=395739135
Again, someone really needs to learn Spanish!
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395774610&oldid=395773866
POV
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395775471&oldid=395774610
FYI, a dozen partners = 24. They originally started with 6 persons. Then they grew in number. Read the website you referenced, Eroberer!
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395776412&oldid=395775471
Paraphrasing for the casual reader: Allied meaning partial member, as explained on the reference you referenced, Eroberer!
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395778197&oldid=395776412
Restoring information deleted by Eroberer, which I will gladly do my best to find references for, if it is so required:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ganas&diff=395779832&oldid=395778197 --Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Partner vs. Member

I'd like to discuss issues one by one, starting with the minor ones:

I do understand that the Ganas core-group started with six members and grew to an average of a dozen (it ranges from 10-15). But I question the importance of this tidbit. Since it started with six over 30 years ago I think it belongs in the History section, not the summary. A dozen describes the average over the past 30 years and as it stands presently. I think part of the problem is that Campoftheamericas interprets dozen partners to mean 24 members. In English partner is not synonymous with pair. I don't think native English speakers are confused by this and they understand that partner refers to the communal partnership and/or business partnership, as the core-group is currently organized as an LLC, which also contains partners. I don't see that my sentence is confusing, in any case I've replaced partner with member to avoid conflict.

I don't understand what Campoftheamericas is trying to accomplish by insisting on mentioning the core-group grew from 6 to 12 thirty years ago. Is it so remarkable that they doubled in size, does it somehow contribute to NPOV? In any case if anyone wants to insert the started with six info please do so in the history section and find a reference for it, I don't want to since I don't think it's that important. Further, the mention of family is confusing and implies that the original six were related, which is not true. Also I don't think there is a reference for that, but please find one if you want it included. Any comments? Eroberer (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What is a Summary

Misplaced Pages defines summary thusly: A summary, synopsis, or recap is a shorter version of the original. Such a simplification highlights the major points from the much longer subject, such as a text, speech, film, or event. The purpose is to help the audience get the gist in a short period of time.

I understand this to mean the summary should simply highlight the major points of the article, which would include points from both the History and Controversy sections. The purpose is to give the reader the gist of the entire article, not introduce minor details from Ganas' personal website, which as I've said before is a poor reference and should be used sparingly, if at all. There is a link to their website in the link section and that should suffice. The whole issue of using their website as a reference will have to be addressed separately, as it seems to be a big deal. Details about work arrangements and planning sessions straight from their website do not belong in the summary. I will continue to work on it but I think there should be some discussion/agreement about what the summary should contain, as this is where the bulk of disagreements seem to arise. Any thoughts? Eroberer (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree.--Campoftheamericas (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please state your case Eroberer (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave you the honors of taking off the following from "the hope of resolve."--Campoftheamericas (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have objections to some of your references. Facebook page is a Misplaced Pages feedback loop. New roots appears to be original research. Ganas website and FIC entry are self-published or self-written. Can you not find independent sources? Eroberer (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

http://newroots.drizzlehosting.com/papers/lm06.html --Campoftheamericas (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it. Original research on a personal website. Not published by reputable source. And Facebook? Really?? Totally inappropriate. Eroberer (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What about "pointless negativity". Do you remember where that is from? For example, I find this discussion to be rather pointless. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you seeking citation for? The date, or the fact that Gordon was founder? Eroberer (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

? Campoftheamericas (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your Third Opinion request: The guidelines at the Third Opinion project says that requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed there. The request made there in reference to this dispute has been removed for that reason. Please feel free to relist if if you still desire a third opinion, but if no one has taken the request in this length of time it may be unlikely that anyone will do so in the future, especially since you have a request for comments pending. If you still need help with your dispute after the RFC, you should consider informal or formal mediation as the next step in the dispute resolution process. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Eroberer Ero Edits

"There have been allegations by ex-members that Ganas is a cult, and their rules require that complaints be kept to internally, or be discussed in group process."
Yes, and I think some are quite manipulative! Oops... original research. Maybe if I tell some newspaper reporter that, then they print it, then it won't be original research anymore! I'm gonna call FOX! Campoftheamericas (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest changes

I think I have achieved a workable compromise as to the summary, which now conforms to discussion above (What is a summary). Removed some garbage references (Facebook) and excessive Ganas website material. Still seeking comment from rational third parties. Eroberer (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected for a week

Due to an edit war, I've protected the page for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is poor

I am not affiliated with Ganas. I am a student of intentional community and monasticism. I have heard mixed things about ganas from people who have lived there. It certainly has its detractors. But this article does a great injustice to a fascinating community. It's absolutely POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defenestrate (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)~~!

Happy turkey day! Speaking of POV, many people are "fascinated" by Scientology and People's Temple as well, and don't even start with the Manson family! I see Ganas as the same type of organization and suggest that this article be modeled after Wiki articles on same. Whatever is fascinating about Ganas is welcome as long as it comes from an objective third party source; for better or worse there doesn't seem to be much of that published about Ganas. That alone should excuse this article from many repeated POV complaints. To quote from Scientology's talk page, "I think it is not WP policy being broken. I think it is an unintended side-effect. There are few sources that satisfy WP:RS which portray Scientology (or Ganas) in any light other than negative. Most sources like that are primary, and are therefore excluded." Eroberer (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct that sources tend to put a spin on all things out of the ordinary as, yeah, weird. I have encountered a number of people who have been to Ganas, and the main thing they had said was, "looks cool, but the core group of people sure have a bizarre interaction." They are affiliated with some respected community networking organizations. Look at the article on Twin Oaks Community. Just because there are scandals doesn't mean that the article has to be in a skeptical tone, or that it has to entirely be about the founder's difficulties with the law. I hope the article can be improved somehow, I'm just not sure how. Defenestrate (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit war Redux

In light of the above I have AGAIN deleted substandard references that are btw ill-formatted and gone back to a generalized summary section, which needn't repeat details in the body of the article. Except for info about Ganas rules, which are of primary importance despite the commune's attempts to obfuscate the truth. AGAIN seeking rational third opinions. Eroberer (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

WikiDao (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Eroberer

....CampoftheAmericas/98.200.187.241 repeatedly reverts to the current version of the article which includes incorrectly formatted references from Facebook, blogs, original research and self-published sources. He refuses to negotiate or even communicate, and insists on inserting minor details from Ganas' own website, a primary source, into the summary. I have made the point several times that the summary should reflect only the major points of the entire article and Ganas website should be used as a source only when referring to how Ganas represents itself, if at all. I would like the 25 November 2010 version to prevail. Eroberer (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Campoftheamericas

....This article needs to be rewritten with a neutral point of view

Third opinion by WikiDao

It looks like a Mediation Cabal case has very recently been filed on this issue by User:Campoftheamericas: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-11-09/Ganas. I believe that process takes "precedence" over a 3O, and with that understanding will wait for the outcome to that case before continuing to provide a 3O. I'll keep an eye out for further dispute here, though, and perhaps make a comment about it. What would help most at this point would be to narrow down as specifically as possible the exact nature or key points of the content dispute. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(Actually it looks like the MedCab case was submitted by Campoftheamericas all the way back on Nov 11 (and was responded to just recently) – Campoftheamericas seems not to have been active since then (unless as 98.200.187.241...?)).

Texas! source: http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/98.200.187.241 Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• It would help if both of the editors primarily involved in this dispute, instead of just reverting in one edit a huge number of changes throughout the article, could make some of those changes in a more one-edit-at-a-time way. It would just be easier to evaluate the content issues being disputed that way, thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Eroberer's Response to WikiDao

Thank you WikiDao, I'd like to make one argument at a time but CampoftheAmericas has been refusing to engage in negotiation. I'll start with the first paragraph. As I've said before I think the summary should contain only the major points from the entire article. I think I accomplished this with the 25 November 2010 version, however CampoftheAmericas seems to think it necessary to include details from the Ganas website such as "The community was founded in 1979 with a family of 6 persons, and grew to consist of 10–12 core group members, that share as in a commune, and 60 to 70 members of varying involvement Within the core group, some work within the community and some work independently. Likewise, approximately half the members work within the community, and the other half pay monthly for rent, food, and utilities. The three businesses run by Ganas are associated with the sale of used articles: furniture, clothing, and books. The book cafe also has a neighborhood stage, with a weekly variety of performers."

Virtually all of this is straight from the Ganas website, a primary source; although some is paraphrased and interpreted by CampoftheAmericas. In any case, since it is detail from the body of the article (in my version) it is intrusive and inappropriate in the summary, especially as it is from a primary source and somewhat promotional. It certainly doesn't rate as major points about Ganas, as those would be mostly about Feedback Learning and the rules regarding adherence to Ganas policy, as these are what Ganas is mostly about. Details about their work lives and origins don't belong in the summary and the only source for them is Ganas itself anyway. Moreover, the reference to "family of six persons" is misleading as it implies blood relation, and again there is no source for that statement other than CampoftheAmericas.

I will wait for response from WikiDao before changing anything or going on to next paragraph. Eroberer (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Eroberer. I made some format changes to some of the refs and addressed a couple of the points you made. The way the lead is now seems more-or-less okay for a lead to me. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao's changes

Thanks for your attention, but that doesn't address the suitability of that info in the summary. But before getting into that, did you look at the references? Facebook is just not a valid reference anywhere on Misplaced Pages, what's more that page is actually a feedback loop of an old version of the Wikepedia article! The Newsroots reference is a personal page that constitutes original research, and Fire-fighting committee reference is a blog made by an associate of Ganas. I don't think any of these are valid, though the blog post does say something interesting: that non-negotiable negativity means it is not OK to refuse to talk. I do think the rule against negativity should be included, and probably with that definition because otherwise it's not clear what non-negotiable negativity means. It might even be a good idea to devote a section to the Ganas rules and what they mean, but that would be more appropriate in the controversy section.

So for now I'm going to delete the invalid references and move the details to the body of the article, as you can see here. There is mention of the negativity rule in the summary, as I agree it is important, but it goes into more detail in the controversy section. It is much more relevant to a summarization than info from Ganas website. Eroberer (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing those references for those reasons seems good to me (I only actually looked at the Ganas Info ref, which seems reliable enough and which, let's see, right, you seem to have left in).

Just looking at the lead section for now. Your most recent edit has this:

• "The main purpose of Ganas is Feedback Learning, a group problem solving process begun by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon. Ganas rules require that all residents agree to use the Ganas method of problem-solving. A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas exposed several controversial issues about the community. Ganas operates a recycling business that sells used merchandise and employs some residents. The community was founded in 1979 and consists of a core-group of a dozen partners as well as approximately 65 tenants."

Instead of this:

• "The community was founded in 1979 with a group of six people, and has grown to consist of 10–12 core group members, and 60 to 70 members of varying involvement Within the core group, some work within the community and some work independently. Likewise, approximately half the members work within the community, and the other half pay monthly for rent, food, and utilities. The three businesses run by Ganas are associated with the sale of used articles: furniture, clothing, and books. The book cafe also has a neighborhood stage, with a weekly variety of performers."

It just strikes me that they could "practice Feedback Learning" anywhere – the primary purpose of Ganas as a place seems to be as a communal living arrangement involving several buildings and some small businesses. The red text seems more informative about what Ganas is; the green text is on the other hand about why this place is notable enough to merit an article here (ie. that there was a shooting, which may have been related to the somewhat "controversial" group practices and philosophies and so on...). Just seems to me like the basic "what is the place" info should come before the "what goes on there" info:

• "The community was founded in 1979 with a group of six people, and has grown to consist of 10–12 core group members, and 60 to 70 members of varying involvement. There are three on-site businesses run by Ganas, including a bookstore-cafe. Members are required to participate in sessions called "Feedback Learning", a group problem-solving process begun by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon. A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas exposed several controversial issues about the community.

Or something like that. What are your thoughts? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's fine, and less clunky too. I just wanted to make the point that Feedback Learning is the primary purpose and an effectively mandatory part of life there. People expecting to find just communal living arrangements will be mistaken! Great, glad we worked that out! Eroberer (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How long since you have lived there, Eroberer? 98.200.203.99 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that's relevant, 98.200, as long as all WP guidelines and policies are met in this article. That's what we are working on, you are welcome to participate in that process; there is no need to make a personal issue of anything, and it is liable to be counterproductive. Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

She states that feedback learning is mandatory. Where does she get this information? Maybe she lives there, or has lived there, and therefore knows. That's relevant, and not a personal attack. Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. (According to this diff, 98.116.147.84 and User:Campoftheamericas is one and the same editor, is that correct? And is 98.200.203.99 a different editor, or also the same?).

If there is not a reliable source for anything in this article, it can be removed on that basis. No original research is permitted at WP, so the personal experience of any given editor here is not relevant. If it can be backed by a source, it goes in the article; if not, it doesn't

For that same reason, I have reverted your recent edit to the article. For one thing, I do not know what "forum facilitation" might be or how it could be a primary purpose of a communal living arrangement. If you would like to propose the changes you want to make one at a time, providing reliable sources for them and working to arrive at an agreed-upon version that best summarizes those sources, we can discuss that here. That is already what User:Eroberer and I have begun to do above; if you have an objection to the wording of the lead section that we have already agreed upon, please express that objection here before continuing to revert that text from the article. Thank you. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the NYT source says, "Although participation is not compulsory, about a third of the residents show up for the breakfast and dinnertime sessions..." so I will correct the article to say participation is not compulsory, thank you for pointing that out. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Compulsory Participation

I would call your attention to "...everyone who lives here agrees to follow our four rules (described below) and to use our method of problem solving." from the Ganas website (Structure). Although the above mentioned (NY Times) reference says participation is not compulsory, Ganas itself seems to contradict that, by saying everyone agrees to use their problem solving method. I see that is a big sticking point, and I wonder what we can do to clear that up? Just the fact that Ganas seems unwilling to be transparent about their policy is reason enough to present both sides of the issue, IMO. I understand that Ganas website is a primary source that I have discounted before, yet I think this is a BIG DEAL, as Ganas seems to want to cover it up, ie. deny that participation is mandatory. So how can we resolve this? Anyone? Eroberer (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is the Ganas website?

Another cited source, in addition to the NY Times, is this one, which describes participation in group practices in more detail:

The 13 members of the core group serve as the board of directors and pool all their time, talents, and material resources. They're also committed to exchanging thoughts and feelings. An extended core group of about 20 additional people do not share resources and are not necessarily committed to exchange feedback (however, mostly they do opt to participate). A third tier consists of 30 to 35 people who may stay for years. Some work in the community, most are employed elsewhere. They are not committed to join any discussions or other community activities.

Generally speaking, yes, it is "permissible" to use primary sources, but policy is that they are to be used sparingly and only for very basic facts, etc. The comment you attribute to "the Ganas website" would qualify, perhaps, but please provide the link so I can look at it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am speaking of the last line of the Structure section of Ganas website, which says "Despite this variety of connection, everyone who lives here agrees to follow our four rules (described below) and to use our method of problem solving". I think there is a lot of wiggle room between "necessarily committed" and "agrees to follow", you know? It seems like a very grey area that Ganas is not too keen on clarifying, for whatever reason, speaking of not necessarily committed! What I'm trying to say is, just the fact that Ganas tries to avoid saying Feedback Learning is mandatory, and as you can see their members are adamant about excluding that info, is very suspect. They seem to be trying to say that there is a choice about how deeply members are involved, yet the non-negotiable negativity clause dictates that one MAY NOT CHOOSE to "opt out" of involvement. I think this is a pretty big subject that doesn't have to be decided right away. It might bear addressing in the Controversy section, actually. It is a major point though, I think. Eroberer (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm just reading it as a difference between "compelled to agree to attend all 'breakfast and dinner' sessions" as opposed to "agree in principle as a condition of living there to use 'Feedback Learning' sessions to resolve problems". All the sources, including ganas.org and the New York Times article, seem consistent with the second interpretation. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the second interpretation is accurate, I just don't know how to word it gracefully. But I'll save that for later. Eroberer (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

On to History

So I made the aforementioned change, and the next change I prospose is seen here. I originally wanted to discuss more about the GROW fraud case, but a previous editor insisted it was a coatrack article, which is why I made a separate Mildred Gordon article and linked the Ganas article to it, for more reading about the Ganas founder, which I guess is considered a separate topic from Ganas. But I did want to get mention of the investigation's outcome, as GROW seems to be the precursor of Ganas it is very relevant. I tried to emphasize the separation in time of the two orgs, and the fact that apart from the founder the two orgs involved a different group of people. Any thoughts? Eroberer (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine. I started a "See also" section and moved the suggestion to see also the Mildred Gordon article there . WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a paragraph break to visually emphasize the separation of NY events from San Francisco events...also deleted repeated info about core group beginnings, seems redundant. Changes are seen here, I very much appreciate the participation of WikiDao, hope to hear more from you. Eroberer (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous Editors

Uh oh, anonymous editors are back. 98.200.187.241 is Campofamericas, and now they have undone all our hard work and re-instated promotional material from Ganas website, plus a reference from Zegg, which appears to be another commune website. Plus I don't see how it is a source (for forum facillitation?), as the only reference to Ganas is made by a member of same. They have added 3 new sections straight from the Ganas website and I'm very against that. And of course, absolutely no discussion on talk page. This really appears to be straight up vandalism. Are you out there WikiDao? Eroberer (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• (Comment by 98.116.147.84 removed per WP:OUTING). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Finding Citations

WikiDao, you propose to help me find citations. I am interested in what I can use to cite. There is someone interested in doing their thesis on the community, but that may not be out for some time. Ganas is not extensively written about. I don't think tabloids (or newspapers wishing to have an entertaining article) can be included as sources about Ganas. Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Campoftheamericas. Yes, if there are reliable sources for the information you would like to add to the article, I will help you properly cite those sources about that information. But please note, again, that WP has a policy prohibiting original research (and further information about both those points can be found by following the links). In other words, nothing can go in the article purely on the basis of your own personal experience, or that of any other user. If it is not written about in a reliable source, it can be removed from the article at any time by anyone on that basis alone.

But, that does not mean to say that personal experience is of no use at all in writing WP articles, either. You already prompted me to make one change to the article, about the "compulsoriness" of participation in group sessions – but I made that change only after looking closer at the NY Times article cited for that information. That's the way it's supposed to work – if you think something should be in the article, that's fine – as long as a reliable source (other than yourself, random people who live there or used to live there, etc) can be found which says that, too. Otherwise, especially if there is "personal" disagreement about it, it gets removed.

As soon as I get a minute sometime soon I will have a closer look at what you have been trying to add to the article and then try to say something more specific about that, okay? Again, though, thanks for participating further in the discussion – we have a process for collaboratively making WP a useful online encyclopedic resource, and it does work eventually as long as everyone shares that goal and agrees to make good faith and civil efforts to achieve it! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! But the newspaper articles are written with a POV, and that POV should not extend into Misplaced Pages.

Note that I changed "98.116" in your paragraph above to "Campoftheamericas". The paragraph you are responding to is mine. I can not give you a source for this. Maybe I can have this information reviewed and published, so that it can be included in this very talk page. Otherwise, you will have to revert Campoftheamericas to 98.116.

Also, I have facts to share about Ganas. To whom shall I tell these facts, where they can be reviewed and published, so that they can be included in the Misplaced Pages article? Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Cota, thank you for using your regular account for this! :)

Okay, the basic policy on sources is spelled out at WP:PSTS. That says:

• Primary sources: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Misplaced Pages a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.
• Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether material counts as a primary or secondary source is not fixed. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if he includes details of his own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those issues. Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.
• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

I still have not considered the specific changes you would like to make; like I said, I'm sure what you want to add can be accommodated in some way, but I have to take the time to consider that more carefully, which should be possible sometime soon... :) Until then, please consider the policy I cited above, and feel free to ask further questions about it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember coming across articles in Misplaced Pages that do not have secondary sources, possibly because, there are no secondary sources. These articles are not removed from Misplaced Pages, they are only labeled as requiring sources. Also, you didn't mention anything about the use of tabloids as secondary sources. Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source of material about the war, but if he includes details of his own war experiences, it would be a primary source of material about those issues"

I have seen Ganas, and am writing about it as a historian. What better way to know about Ganas than to witness it? I did not mention any personal experiences. If you would like, I can submit my findings to be reviewed, but I would like to know what entity can review my information. Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So I think what you are asking about now is covered under WP:No original research:

"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources.

This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. (more...)"

I'm still thinking about how to include some of what you want to say here. Meanwhile, do you have any further comments about the blue paragraph under #WikiDao's changes above, other than the "members are required" part which was changed per your objection? If not, can you agree to leave that wording in the article for now? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For starters, very few participate in feedback learning. Definitely, the majority do not. I have witnessed feedback learning in progress, but have not been a subject for feedback. I have also witnessed the forum facilitation technique, which is completely different from feedback learning. Campoftheamericas (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What general category do "feedback learning" and "forum facilitation" belong to? Are they forms of "Group therapy"? Is there a better term? I'm looking for something that we can link to, and that will make sense to the casual reader unfamiliar with these terms. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both would fall under the category of group therapy. The Ganas core group focuses on group therapy as a means to improve communication among members and settle disagreements. Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You have ignored a question. Do you know of an entity that can review what I want to publish? Is there an independent, collaborative, volunteer run, non-profit publisher? Campoftheamericas (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best in this case if we take things on a case-by-case basis. "Tabloids" can be permissible secondary sources, they are not ruled out as a class by WP:RS, though we strive always for a neutral POV at WP and if the tabloid material is outrageously slanted we don't have to use it. What, in particular, do you have a problem with in this article? Note also that WP:BLP, to the extent it applies here, doesn't say that nothing unflattering to anyone (or any group) can go into a WP article, just that privacy should have precedence over "sensationalism" (except where really well-sourced, notable, and relevant, which may be the case for the material here re. Ganas...). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree to discuss issues on a case by case basis. It would be the best course, and I am happy that we would create a better Misplaced Pages article than I alone could manage. Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

However, I have been told that if I continue to distress Eroberer, they are afraid she will get upset and come and shoot them down. They want me to cease editing. They would rather her vengeance be through wikipedia rather than bullets. Following is part of a private one-on-one discussion between a member of Ganas and I (the words are summarized):

member: "What right do you have to make a decision for the rest of us?"

me: "If this affects all of us, then why not bring it before all members of Ganas?"

member: "We do not want to create a negative ambiance, and we could not contain everyone from Misplaced Pages if they found out about Eroberer"

me: "What right do you have to make a decision for me?"

member: "We don't have the right, but we can kick you out."

I can see these viewpoints. Leave me to my own devices, and I will just write, but I don't know what is right. There is an episode in Star Trek Deep Space Nine, where officers with genetically modified advanced intelligence want to surrender to the Dominion, because it will result in 9 billion casualties as opposed to 300 billion, but Starfleet decides to keep fighting. How would future stupid generations (like myself) perceive themselves knowing that their forebearers surrendered to Dominion rule? However, is this such a situation? These decisions are not for me to make. I just want a quality Misplaced Pages article. I want openness. People that feel superior want to make decisions for the rest of us. The ends do not justify the means. That's why there are problems in the first place! ...I never did have much patience for negotiations *grin*. Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

According to , Campoftheamericas has requested that I mediate this article. That means that I'm going to try to solve the dispute that is currently going on. I'll also attempt to fix the issues with neutrality. Mr R00t 01:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, MrR00t! I am already offering a 3O, please see recent comments. Your involvement is appreciated! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The present state of the dispute concerns this edit by User:Campoftheamericas (as 98.116.147.84). I have two concerns with that:

1) It is replacing this text:

The community was founded in 1979 with a group of six people, and has grown to consist of 10–12 core group members plus 60 to 70 members of varying involvement. There are three on-site businesses run by Ganas, including a bookstore-cafe. Though not compulsory, many members choose to participate in sessions called "Feedback Learning", a group problem-solving process begun by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon. A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas exposed several controversial issues about the community.

with this:

The community was founded in 1979 with a group of six people, and has grown to consist of 10–12 core group members plus 60 to 70 members of varying involvement. Within the core group, some work within the community and some work independently. Likewise, approximately half the members work within the community, and the other half pay monthly for rent, food, and utilities. The three businesses run by Ganas are associated with the sale of used articles: furniture, clothing, and books. The book cafe also has a neighborhood stage for performances. The community goal is to live harmoniously by working on communication.

The green text was agreed upon (with both User:Eroberer's and 98.116.147.84's participation), and I think Cota is willing to agree to stop removing at least that much for now.

2) It adds these three additional sections:

Decision Making

Day to day business related decision making is made by managers responsible for their own department. Five days a week there is a 2 hour planning session, to communicate business and personal issues over breakfast. Anyone in the community can participate in the meeting, but discussions are led by the core group. There is no voting process or any rigid structure except that decisions must be in consensus of the core group. Consensus of all involved parties is strived for.

Core Group

Anyone can become a member of the core group if they wish so and the other core group members are in agreement. However, there has not been a new core group person in over 10 years.

Communication

The main focus of Ganas is communication for better relationships. Methods that have been used include feedback learning and forum facilitation.

About which I think there should be further discussion, and consideration of points raised above concerning WP:RS and WP:NOR. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Most media publications are written in a tabloid-like format that would sell to the public, and brings along with it a non-neutral point of view. If you do not have unbiased information, or if your information is incomplete, and the added information cannot be brought about because the information I bring you is not verifiable, then I suggest you delete the articles having to do with Ganas, members of Ganas, former members of Ganas (such as Mildred Gordon), etc, as it does harm to them: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons. Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Or you can go back to the article that existed before the user Eroberer started editing. Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference free was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference dictators was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ganas was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference london was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ "Visions of Utopia". Retrieved 2010-11-08.
6. "Reflections". zegg-forum.org. Retrieved 2010-12-01.

• Unassessed Urban studies and planning articles
• Unknown-importance Urban studies and planning articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment