Talk:Ganas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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 [1], 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: [2]. 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 [3]...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 [4]), 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)

Eroberer Ero Edits

"There have been allegations by ex-members that Ganas is a cult,[21] and their rules require that complaints be kept to internally, or be discussed in group process.[4]"
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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.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)

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 ^{T C} 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. Wikipedia 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

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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&oldid=303426567
Please look at the POV as Eroberer left the article in August:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&action=historysubmit&diff=395739135&oldid=395647824

-- Campoftheamericas individual changes to content created solely by Eroberer
Speculation? Opinion:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&diff=395270688&oldid=395270499
As mentioned above, only 6 members when founded:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&diff=394615397&oldid=394588645
As mentioned above, improper commune label:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&diff=395003535&oldid=394615397
Improved description of distinguishing factors from commune label:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&diff=395270060&oldid=395269132
A random quote from one member does not belong in the summary:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&diff=395773866&oldid=395739135
Again, someone really needs to learn Spanish!
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ganas&diff=395774610&oldid=395773866
POV
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?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

Wikipedia 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.[citation needed]"--Campoftheamericas (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have objections to some of your references. Facebook page is a Wikipedia 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)

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: Wikipedia: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[4][5] 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 Wikipedia, 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' [Feedback Learning] 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 [5]. 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia that do not have secondary sources, possibly because, there are no secondary sources. These articles are not removed from Wikipedia, 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:

"Wikipedia 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, settle disagreements, overcome personal issues, etc. Campoftheamericas (talk) 01:47, 7 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Well it sounds like you have your work cut out for you on the home front there, Camp, but please try to keep that area of your life separate from your participation here at WP. And please keep in mind that civility is a Pillar here; you are welcome to contribute but please make an effort not to bring personal issues you may have with other editors (or other residents at the subject of this article, for that matter) into your participation here.

Thanks, and please proceed with the first case you would like to discuss where the article seems unduly biased (and is unsourced or poorly sourced). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 8 houses in a suburban residential area and 3 businesses run by the core group. This, for example, should be in the summary. Group therapy is a minor part of life for members outside of the core group (to be specific, not all core group members focus on group therapy, and a handful outside of the core group are frequent participators). Many members choose to participate? Also many do not. Why not write about the mechanics and structure of Ganas, before writing about certain people's interests or what they have been accused of? Ganas is one of the few intentional communities that HAS NO CHARTERED PURPOSE as a whole. The purpose is made up of the people that are in it, and everyone is different. The goal of group therapy is to improve communication among members so that issues get worked out in a way that optimizes the happiness of the people involved (at least in theory). So to a person reading this article wanting to know what the purpose of Ganas is, the simplest thing you could say is "we try to get along". That a crazy person came through and shot someone is a notable event, but I think it belongs in the history section, and not in the summary, as it does not define Ganas. Campoftheamericas (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this sounds like WP:OR, which as mentioned is not permitted at WP. Please see the section #The Conflict of interest policy below for my opinion that any proposed changes to this article by anyone with a COI (as you have acknowledged having above) should be made very conservatively. At this point, I see no changes that need to be made on the basis of what you have so far had to say about the content of the article. Please also, again, keep civility in mind, and avoid using any kind of at all inflammatory or disruptive language in your comments here. Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"The last rule is defined as "It's not OK to refuse to talk" This statement in the Ganas article is completely false. Much like what the article used to contain about the meaning of the word "Ganas" in Spanish. Is it true that you cannot ask a Spanish speaker on the topic? Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I see that is currently sourced to this blog. I will remove it from the article per your contention and WP:RS. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the blog is not a great reference but it does define non-negotiable negativity which needs explanation, I think. The writer of the blog is a long-time associate of Ganas and I think it's an accurate definition, not completely false! What's important to stress is not how many or to what degree members engage in feedback learning, group therapy, whatever; but that it IS MANDATORY to participate in group process when there are conflicts, problems, etc. and this applies to EVERYONE. I understand that Ganas tries to avoid saying anything is mandatory, but the fact that "everyone who lives here agrees to follow our four rules" and the last one is no non-negotiable negativity means it is required. It merits further explanation which I will work on.

Also before the shooting incident Ganas did have a chartered purpose, as it was required in order to obtain tax-exempt status. After the shooting the core group reorganized as an LLC and no longer channels money through FFL. I doubt there is any documentation to prove it but it appears to me this was done to obfuscate the fact that Ganas is practicing therapy by untrained, unlicensed, non-therapists under the guise of an educational non-profit org. As you know the founder has been in trouble for the very same thing in the past, and the media attention probably prompted them to avoid association with that.

In general I think it's useful to always ask "what is Ganas notable for?" when deciding what to include. If a large portion of members are not involved with feedback, group discussion, whatever then what do those people do that is notable? Eroberer (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

According to [6], 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 ^{Talk 'tribs} 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: Wikipedia: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)

It is very unlikely that we will mass rollback Eroberer. For one, we would need a large consensus to do so, which we don't have, and Rollback is not for use in revert wars. Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Conflict of interest policy

User:Campoftheamericas, for one, has self-identified as having a conflict-of-interest in the content of this article. I thought it might be useful to cite some main points from that policy here:

• Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested.
• COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously.
• If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard.
• Anything you say and do on Wikipedia can have real world consequences. COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely. You do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known.
• When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of other editors.

And please see WP:COI for more. This applies to everyone involved in this article, and note that it is encouraged but not required that you reveal a COI here if you have one. And please also keep WP:OUTING in mind; it is encouraged that you reveal your own COI, but not necessarily someone else's even if you believe them to have one. (If there is further dispute on this point, there is probably an administrator's noticeboard to take the issue up on, I will look into it on request).

Because there is such a clear case of COI already with at least one of the editors involved in the present dispute, I think it would be best to be very conservative with the changes made to the present version of the article by editors with that COI for at least the duration of the present dispute.

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

normal talk page stuff

OK, not making any changes without discussing first. Let's see, I saw a policy that lead paragraphs aren't supposed to "tease". Isn't this kind of a tease? "A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas exposed several controversial issues about the community." I don't personally understand the issues, but what's a good short summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is this policy you speak of? I don't think this is a tease, for one thing the controversy actually exists and is discussed in the article; it is not a false lead. The summary is supposed to be the major points from the article, as discussed above. Controversy is a major part of Ganas, no getting around it. Eroberer (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned at WP:LEAD (which isn't technically a policy, sorry). My question is, what precisely was exposed in 2006 (that wasn't known before)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Known before by who? The general public didn't know anything about Ganas until the shooting, and most Ganas members don't know about the founder's history because Ganas hides it and seeks to control how they are perceived, talked about, etc. The WP:LEAD section you cited specifically says the summary should contain controversial issues, and I don't think it's a tease because they are explained. Eroberer (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My take on WP:LEAD: if the controversy is important, describe it succinctly in the lead. With emphasis on its substance, rather than an event that led to its greater publicity. Can you describe the most important controversy(ies) in a sentence or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, and I think that WOULD be a tease. Plus someone else will complain about controversy in the summary. Are you suggesting the shooting not be mentioned, or at least hidden? I know Ganas and their friends would like this. Eroberer (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the shooting go unmentioned, and I don't know what you mean by "hidden". Why can't you describe the most important controversy (or controversies) in a sentence or two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article presently says:

'These and other discrepancies were brought to light by the shooting of Ganas co-founder Jeff Gross on May 29, 2006. The media attention surrounding the incident exposed allegations that Ganas is "a cult, a hippie commune that owns $10 million in real estate, and it went mad with power. The power is playing chess with people's lives. They control minds with drugs that are used by psychotherapists."'

I think the lead summarizes that fairly well already, how would you word an improved lead summary, 24.59.179.184? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Are these the main controversies? If so, how is $10 million in real estate even interesting, let alone controversial? And how should I interpret the last sentence from the quote? There aren't any "mind control" drugs, as far as I know. Can someone clarify? If not, I guess I would omit these "controversies" altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.237.34 (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It would perhaps be more productive if you were to read the article and the references it cites before further "talk" about it here...?

BTW Merry Christmas! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by this, WikiDao? I've read the article and many of the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Just meant you responded to my quote from the article in green above as if it seemed new to you. I guess I'm not sure what you want to discuss about the article, please try to clearly explain what change in wording or deletion of text you would like to see in the article at this point, and why. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an important controversy about Ganas, I would like there to be a concise description of it in the lead. If it isn't that important, let's omit it from the lead. Per WP:LEAD, I don't think it's appropriate to just mention it without any description. If no one can help to describe it, then I propose to omit it. But if someone can help, then great, let's talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine. This is a well-sourced article, with a lot of coverage by the New York Times. It sure sounds to me (I had never heard anything about this place until I offered a WP:3O on the dispute above a few weeks ago) like the shooting caused a lot of attention to be paid to the place/group, much of it about "controversial" group practices and so forth. If it weren't for the shooting, much of that would not have been covered by the press, and Ganas might not therefore even be notable enough for a WP article. Likewise with the shooting itself.

That there was a shooting, and that it led to relatively extensive reporting on "controversies" about the group and its history and practices, are together most of what has caused Ganas to merit its own article here. So both, the shooting and the "controversy" around group history and practices, are going to feature prominently in that article. I think it could be worded more neutrally, though – I'd like to see it become more like the New York Times articles it cites, to state a concrete aim. I would probably support any proposed changes in that direction... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao, Ganas is one of the most prominent intentional communities (communes) in the country, and had a WP article before the shooting. Are you neutral on including a description of the controversy in the lead, or do you object to it for some reason? If you object to it, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I came in on this through seeing it listed as a content dispute at WP:3O a few weeks ago, and the discussion above gave me the sense that this article may have a more-than-usual amount of WP:COI going on with it. Which had flared up into edit-warring, too, so there also seems to be conflicting conflict-of-interest going on. So, for my part, I am taking a conservative stance with regard to the text as it is now. Though I have made several changes to it myself after first discussing those changes here, on this page above – including the wording in the lead you are questioning.

I'll consider further the points you are making about that and respond below.

Interesting that the article existed pre-shooting, I hadn't known that. But, it wasn't until after the shooting that the article even had a reliable source, and that was about the shooting. Before that, the article clearly met the criteria for deletion (unsourced and non-notable) and could have been at any time up to that point if anyone had wanted to bother. I'm sure you'll agree that the shooting and what came out about Ganas' history and "controversial" practices in eg. the New York Times as a result of the shooting are going to continue to feature prominently in our article. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what "the controversy" refers to, nor why it must be gone into in detail in the summary. The summary is simply an abbreviated version of the entire article. Is 24.59.179.184 suggesting "the controversy" be restricted to just the summary? I don't understand what the issue is, seems like we've got to nail that down first. Eroberer (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Compare Scientology. The lead doesn't merely assert that there is a controversy; it briefly describes it. Now compare Twin Oaks. The lead doesn't mention any controversy. So, neither of those contains a "tease" in the sense of WP:LEAD. Whereas Ganas does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Good examples.

So presently the article reads

A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas exposed several controversial issues about the community.

and you would like to see it read something more like

A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas brought to public attention several controversial issues about the community, including "a tangled network of communal jealousies involving lurid tales of sex with dwarves and lesbian orgies."

Right? (That quote is from the source cited for the original sentence). And I guess other things could be mentioned, too.

I don't know, I think it's really fine as-is. Yes, the Scientology article summarizes the controversies there well. But I don't really feel too "teased" by that part of the lead in this article. I won't oppose making that addition if you can summarize the main controversies as you seem to be proposing be done. But there is a very well-documented set of controversies in this case, which is as far as I know not the case for eg. Twin Oaks (nice article, most of which could be taken down at any time for relying solely on primary self-published sources, btw...). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Before proceeding, can we agree that there is a difference between genuine controversy and mere gawking? There is nothing controversial about people with dwarfism having sex, unless one is a bigot -- right? Anyone who is surprised by a "network of communal jealousies" has never visited any community -- right? If we are all on the same page here, I could think about how one might summarize what is genuinely controversial about Ganas. My sense is that it has roughly the flavor of practicing therapy without a license. Although it is nuanced and subjective. Right? Or did I miss something truly disturbing? Perhaps I did. That's why I'm asking, not just proposing changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, the Scientology lead notes controversial beliefs which are independently documented, I don't think there is anything like that for Ganas, unless there is documentation about Feedback Learning. The Scientology page also explains auditing which I think is pretty analagous to Feedback Learning. So I think if you're going to get into that area you're going to have a very different article, which I can guarantee will bring a host of other problems and complaints. Plus there is very little documentation on Feedback Learning except primary sources. I would be interested in how you incorporate practicing therapy without a license into the lead, but it is also practicing therapy without any training, which was the whole point of the GROW investigation. That case demonstrated the founder's tendency to mis-represent herself and her associates as trained professionals, and included the same type of sexual misconduct allegations. Why not just present the facts and let the reader decide whether it's lurid gawking or truly disturbing?

Also, this article is not just for people who have visited a community and know to expect a tangled network of communal jealousies. In fact it is more for people who have no knowledge of the subject, that is presumably why they have come to Wikipedia. They shouldn't be told what to think. And Merry Christmas BTW!! Eroberer (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we're making progress. It sounds like the possibly important controversies about Ganas are:

1. therapy-like practices without license or formal training
2. stuff about founder's history / previous organization
3. sexual misconduct(?)

Anything to add or change about this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd add allegations by former members that Ganas is a cult, arranges green-card marriages, group marriage/wife-swapping, and their non-negativity rule, for starters. Technically these are the controversies brought to light by the shooting, not the unlicensed therapy, which if the media noticed it chose not to write about it. Why not? That's a whole other can of worms. Eroberer (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've substituted what I believe to be a more standard and modern word, "polyamory", for group marriage / wife-swapping. Admittedly it has a bit of a positive connotation, rather than purely neutral, but I still think it is more neutral. I've classified non-negativity as just an example of a feedback learning concept; let me know if you had something more specific in mind. Here is the longer list. Do you have any opinions about which are more/less important, such as might help to guide decisions about inclusion and ordering? Or anything still to add?

1. therapy-like practices without license or formal training
2. stuff about founder's history / previous organization
3. sexual misconduct(?)
4. has been called a "cult"
5. involvement in green-card marriages
6. polyamory
7. specific feedback learning concepts that are arguably controversial (e.g. non-negativity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.179.184 (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you've got to remember you can't just substitute words (polyamory was coined by another cult, btw, don't think that counts as standard) if there is no source for them. The sources say group marriage and wife-swapping, prejudicial or not, that's how the writer sees it. Slave owners would like to not use the word "slave", and we'd all like to portray ourselves as well as possible, but this is an encyclopedia not propaganda. The non-negativity thing is more complicated, the controversy lies in the fact that it is mandatory to participate in feedback learning rather than behave in a negative fashion, which is part of what makes Ganas so cult-ish. It's all a bit much to fit into the summary, though I agree it needs better explanation elsewhere. Anyway, let's hear what you've got. Eroberer (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I've got. Comments? 24.59.179.184 (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

...Though not compulsory, many Some members choose to participate in sessions called "Feedback Learning", a group problem-solving process begun by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon.

As an experimental, left-wing organization, some of Ganas's practices could be seen as controversial. For example, Feedback Learning arguably resembles group therapy, but the participants do not generally have professional licenses or formal training. Some members openly practice polyamory [cite]. It has been alleged that some members have sought to arrange green card marriages [cite].

A 2006 shooting incident brought Ganas a considerable amount of media attention, most of it quite negative. One former member was quoted calling Ganas a "cult". He also stated, "They control minds with drugs that are used by psychotherapists." [cite]

Still talking re. controversy summary in lead

Added arbitrary section break to make this section more easily editable.

Per WP:LEAD, we need to summarize without going into much detail in the lead. So how would this be:

A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas brought to public attention several controversial issues about the community, including the practice of arranged marriages, group sex, and unlicensed psychotherapy by some members.

The cited source for that uses the word "orgies", not "polyamory", which is too uncommon a word to go in the lead; I propose "group sex" as a more neutral, less sensationalistic summary of the term "orgies" in the source.

By the way, Ithaca, you can sign your posts on talk pages (and it is encouraged that you do so) by writing four tildas at the end of your post like this, "~~~~" thanks! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WikiDao, was going to propose something similar. I thought Ithaca's re-write contained alot of editorializing as well, qualifiers, unsourced statements (left-wing organization?) that certainly wouldn't be appropriate in the summary, if at all. Eroberer (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But "arranged marriages" has a totally different connotation from "green-card marriages". Furthermore the latter is alleged as a one-time incident, not a regular practice. "Polyamory" is a reference to "group marriage / wife-swapping" from a different source, but is more general and more accurate than those terms for multiple reasons. Meanwhile, the original source mentions only "tales of orgies"; it does not actually state that group sex takes place. It is unclear whether Feedback Learning is actually "psychotherapy", hence the more fair and accurate phrase "resembles psychotherapy" from my version. "Left-wing" is arguably a paraphrase of "hippie" which appears in multiple sources. The charges that Ganas is a "cult" and practices "mind control" seem, to me, striking enough to mention in the lead. 24.59.179.184 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, green-card marriages are a special case of arranged marriages, but let's keep things simple for the lead. That detail can be clarified later in the article. Re. "polyamory", it is preferred that uncommon, specialist, and/or technical language be avoided in the lead. If you have a source for left-wing politics, we could use it if you want; interpreting those politics from the use of the term "hippie" by some sources is a bit of a stretch imo. But I agree that allegations should be distinguished from proven facts, so maybe:

A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas brought to public attention several controversial issues about the community, including allegations of the practice of arranged marriages, group sex, and unlicensed psychotherapy by some members.

But if we are going to list controversial allegations, maybe we should include rape, too? I think we have several sources that the accused-but-acquitted shooter had previously alleged, but had not proven, rape. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think we were just discussing allegations. If we are, they shouldn't be introduced as "controversial issues". But I think we have enough source material to discuss actual issues. Also, rape is an allegation against an individual, not the whole community. I think that "left-wing" adds some useful context, but agree that it is slightly WP:NOR. I think that "arranged marriages" is misleading because it brings to mind a very different kind of community, namely religious/traditional. Agree it would be preferable to use a more common word for polyamory, I just don't know of one. One can certainly practice polyamory (i.e. openly have more than one lover) without participating in group sex. 24.59.179.184 (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You need a source that says "polyamory" if you want that in the lead. It would be fine to use, wikilinked, further in the article. But it is not a word that the average general reader is sure to know, so is not a good "paraphrase" of the source cited for this sentence (maybe other sources would be better if we change the sentence much more?), which uses the word orgy. If "polyamory" is commonly practiced as part of the thing at Ganas, we should find a WP:RS for that. Likewise with "left-wing" politics. "Arranged" in "arranged marriage" may have many different cultural, etc., meanings, but here it is being used in a purely descriptive sense: marriages seem to have been arranged by the group, whether as part of some kind of green-card scam or not does not seem to me a crucial enough point to mention in the lead for this particular article.

I did just make a couple of changes to the sentence that I think we can agree to now, pending further discussion – and, for now, I'll go ahead and put polyamory in there too, why not. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with several things, but mostly use of "polyamory", a term made up by the same type of community (Kerista) to whitewash what most people would call wife-swapping, open marriage, open relationships, polygamous relationships, etc. To use the word polyamory is akin to original research or primary sources. Most of the independent references use the term wife-swapping, but I'd settle for open relationships, or how about non-monogamous sexual relationships?

I also don't agree there is any basis to say that the green-card marriages were a one-time incident or that left-wing and hippie are in any way interchangeable! If anything, Ganas politics are reactionary! Eroberer (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, impulsive of me to have just put polyamory in there: that really does need a source.

It now reads:

A 2006 shooting incident at Ganas brought to public attention several controversial issues about the community, including allegations of arranged marriages and sexual misconduct.

I'm assuming "brought to public attention" and "allegations of" are agree-able. The source presently cited says "orgies". I took out the "unlicensed 'group-therapy' [in quotes]" because it is not clear to what extent we have sources saying that came out as a result of the shooting, right? Sexual misconduct seems to have been alleged, it is sourced that it was alleged, and presumably those allegations and/or any reality to them are "controversial", so if we are going to spell out the controversies in the lead, I think that ought to be mentioned. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the latest revision, although it is undoubtedly painful for the community. Perhaps Ganas circa 2006 was an environment in which it was impossible to seek help regarding serious sexual misconduct, because it would be treated as "negativity" that required therapy, i.e. Feedback Learning. To whatever extent sources support this, it could be described in the article proper. BTW Eroberer, it is apparently "polyfidelity" that was coined at Kerista, not polyamory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.237.34 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds right to me! And yes, I stand corrected! Eroberer (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

no longer specifically about "controversies"

OK. Did I say 2006? Maybe I meant 1996. And here we are in 2010 -- almost 2011. I don't think it's true today that "many" members participate in Feedback Learning, and it seems odd to emphasize that it isn't compulsory. Why would the reader expect it to be compulsory? Furthermore, the rest of the article has serious issues with tone that may outweigh the value of its factual content. Possibly even more problematic is Mildred Gordon per WP:BLP. Ultimately, in my opinion, Ganas should have some leeway and breathing room to tell its own story and forge its hopefully-less-controversial future. Thoughts? 209.150.237.34 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, Feedback Learning is MANDATORY in the instance of conflicts, problems, negativity - this is discussed AT LENGTH in the sections above. This is important to note for several reasons, one of which you yourself described above. See http://www.ganas.org/#communication describing at least half population involved in Feedback Learning. It is undeniably the centerpiece of the community, by their own admission as well as objective observation. Whatever Ganas is presently "about" is undocumented by anyone but them, and they have many avenues to tell their own story, which they amply do in their own literature. But Wikipedia is not another outlet for anyone's propaganda, it's something else, and maybe Ganas just has to live with that. Eroberer (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the emphasis on "non-compulsory" is odd in part because Feedback Learning may still be required in principle. It is one of many ways in which the present article reads as a tortured compromise rather than a collaborative description. I am wondering how to create the conditions for a collaborative approach, in which (for example) people with stronger connections to Ganas might more easily participate. My impression is that the morning meetings are not (or are no longer) "Feedback Learning" as such; any therapy-like sessions are nowadays semi-private and only a small minority participate. Regardless of which of us is right, is this controversial? There needs to be room for mundane collaboration that is not combative. How to get there? 24.59.179.184 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Note

Well, I don't know. I am willing to continue moderating disputes and opining about wikipolicy when that seems like it might help or be applicable. More directly-involved-in-Ganas people are welcome to contribute, and should understand that there is some tolerance for good-faith contributions by newcomers that may inadvertently in some way violate WP policy. But I want to make it clear again (and please read the rest of this page if you have the time and want to understand what issues have already come up around edits made to this article) two or three things:

• Please see WP:COI. If you have a conflict-of-interest in the topic of this article, please declare that here. It is not required that you do so, but it is encouraged. Whether you disclose a COI or not, it is required (enforceably) that you try to maintain a neutral point-of-view in all your edits to this, as to any other, article.
• Please see WP:NOR. No original research – and that means you! – is permitted at WP. Everything must be reliably sourced, or can be removed at any time.
• Please see WP:RS. Sources come in three varieties: primary, secondary, and tertiary. The WP policy on using these kinds of sources is discussed at WP:PSTS. WP is a tertiary source, and is not considered a reliable source for WP's purposes. You are a primary source, and most of your experience is not considered a reliable source for WP's purposes. Reliable sources are mostly secondary sources. The New York Times is a good example of a good reliable secondary source. Ideally, all information in all WP articles should cite good secondary sources. There are some exceptions to this, though: please see the links above for more information.

You could help, Ithaca, by understanding those points yourself and encouraging any others who you might like to invite to contribute to this article to thoroughly understand those points, too. And feel free to let me know if you have any questions about any of that or if anything problematic comes up, okay? And discussing here changes to the article that might be disputed is always a good idea, too – thanks for your cooperation with that so far, Ithaca. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao, who has declared a COI already? dm (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Campoftheamericas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

self-identified above [7] and confirmed at ANI [8] to being a current resident of Ganas, and also to making edits as

98.116.147.84 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).

(That editor also seems to have decided to take a break from editing this article for awhile, see the above links for more).

Eroberer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

has not, as far as I know, acknowledged having a COI around this material, but seems to make exclusively Ganas-related edits.

Likewise with:

24.59.179.184 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

209.150.237.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

who seem to be one-and-the-same editor, recently active on this page, and who was wondering above[9] how to get more people with Ganas-COIs involved in editing the article...

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

back to content

So, Eroberer, I don't agree that http://www.ganas.org/#communication says that at least half the population is involved in Feedback Learning. As such, I propose that

• many members choose to participate in sessions called "Feedback Learning"

be replaced by

• some members choose to participate in sessions called "Feedback Learning"

OK? By the way, I will now start signing my messages. My signature will be "24" (not "Ithaca"). Thanks. --"24" 24.59.179.184 (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

New proposed lead paragraph

Ganas is an intentional community in New Brighton, Staten Island. The community was founded in 1979 by a group of six people including Mildred Gordon, and has since grown to 10–12 core group members plus 60 to 70 members of varying involvement. The community occupies eight residential buildings and runs three nearby thrift stores covering clothing, furniture and a bookstore-cafe. A 2006 shooting incident increased public awareness of Ganas, heightened by published allegations of arranged marriages and sexual misconduct.

The points about Feedback Learning should be in the body, not the lead, imho. Thoughts? dm (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this

Let's replace:

Though not compulsory, many members choose to participate in sessions called Feedback Learning, a group problem-solving process begun by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon.

with

Participation in Feedback Learning or other group discussion activities is not required of residents except in the case of conflicts or problems, per the community's rule against negativity.

I think that clears the confusion without going into needless nit-picking about how many do exactly what, etc. Can we all agree that Feedback Learning, group process, discussion sessions are of primary importance at the community, especially to the core and extended core groups, which comprise a large and more permanent part of the population? And can we also agree that this is in large part what makes them notable, to both supporters and detractors alike? I don't understand this recent push to diminish the role of group process in this article, is that seen as negative now?

I would also like to see "Feedback Learning is a group problem-solving process begun by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon." re-incorporated but can't think of how to do it gracefully. I think Feedback Learning should get some explanation right up front, as it also ties in with the controversy issue. Ganas has always been a subject of controversy, even before 2006, at least among people involved in the community movement; controversy is not just something arbitrarily thrust upon them by a random event. So I strongly agree with WikiDao that the shooting, controversy and Feedback Learning should figure prominently in the article and remain in the lead. The summary should reflect the article! And the article should reflect what is NOTABLE about the subject! Eroberer (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with your wording, dm.

"Feedback Learning" is already mentioned by name earlier in the lead. I'd be happy just calling it "a group problem-solving process begun by Ganas founder Mildred Gordon" in the lead, though, because the term itself is not going to be very meaningful to anyone who doesn't already know about it and hasn't read the rest of the article yet. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with this (dm's proposal), although it would seem to supersede my proposal above. Agree with explaining "Feedback Learning" wherever it first appears, no opinion about where that should be. --"24" 24.59.179.184 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found a solution by altering a previous sentence. What do you think? Will anyone answer my question about group process? Is that seen as a negative thing now? Is there disagreement that it is central to Ganas? Eroberer (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Re your question, I don't live there and can't really say. My possibly out-of-date impression is that there might be some ambivalence about it. Mainly, though, I think it has just declined in significance over time -- in part because Mildred no longer lives there. OK, I've just worked on the lead a little, see what you think. --"24" 24.59.179.184 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

All of that is okay enough by me. I'm going to try to step back from this and let you folks edit for awhile, but will step back in if any disputes flare up or if some severely problematic edits start getting made to the article. Happy editing, all! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible next steps

I'm wondering where we are. Are there objections at this point to moving the "neutrality is disputed" tag to a position below the lead paragraph? Also, a survey question for anyone who cares: How much space should this article devote to things like the on-site businesses? Thanks. --"24" 24.59.179.184 (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

imho, the italics in the controversy section need to come out before you could remove the tag. in fact, the sentences with the italics seem disproportionate in weight to the rest of the article. I understand some of the editors think Feedback Learning is important, and others think it should be downplayed or removed. What it is not today is neutral though. The shooting section should come out of the controversy section and be a short desciption, again not disproportionate to the rest of the article. dm (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "what is Ganas notable for?" should be first priority, so how notable are their businesses? In the same vein, the shooting is very much intertwined with the controversy about Ganas and should remain in that section. I understand that some editors want the shooting, and any association with controversy, downplayed or removed but that is really impossible. I will work on that section, and remove the italics. Just thought it was important to emphasize the absence of any genuine psychologists, but maybe that is already clear. Eroberer (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me to understand your perspective on notability? You have more experience editing wikipedia than I do, but I thought it mainly applied to whole topics, in order to decide whether they warrant an article at all. Once it's determined that there is going to be an article, I thought the idea was basically to give a well-rounded description. --"24" 24.59.179.184 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I was only meaning to ask whether the lead paragraph now seems neutral. --"24" 24.59.179.184 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, is it generally true that there used to be more material about the businesses and such? I guess I'm proposing to restore some of that, on the common-sense grounds that people who are interested in Ganas might like to see it. I don't have a specific argument around this. Is the material adequately sourced? OK to do this? --"24" 209.150.237.34 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding notability: It would be useful to review policies on Due weight, particularly the point "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Also very relevant is What Wikipedia is not, in particular the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" section. Do you really think people interested in Ganas are interested because of their thrift-store businesses? What do you think they would want to know about it? Is there anything notable about the businesses, is there anything innovative or super-successful about them? Are they involved with any charitable activities? Anything that would be noteworthy enough to write about? The material before was alot of detail about what the stores sell (fair trade tea) which is not what an encyclopedia is for.

I think it would be a useful exercise for all editors to look at some traditional encyclopedia articles (ie. Brittanica) to get an idea what the medium is about. Eroberer (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is that your questions are intended to provoke thought; let me know if you are actually seeking my answers. I have little doubt that the businesses deserve at least some additional coverage. I challenge your reading of Due weight, where "viewpoint" would refer not to thrift stores versus dark controversies, but to different opinions about the thrift stores, or the dark controversies.

However, I am not proposing a specific edit at this moment. Instead, allow me to disclose my (rather obvious) "conflict of interest": I visited Ganas once. Also, I've registered a username (bear with me as I get used to it). Finally, my commitment here is unknown even to me. Odd things figure in, like my recollection that there is a doctor in the core group who offers her services for free to the whole community. I certainly don't understand all the issues. --Formerly "24", now Taisha24 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, your "viewpoint" would be that there should be more material about the businesses. Due weight also says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." So what I'm really asking is, how significant to the subject is the business aspect? Here's some more questions - is there a relationship between the group process aspect and the business aspect? They employ some residents - how are those people paid? Is there any training or advancement available? Do the businesses financially support the community? Wouldn't people interested in the business aspect want to know if there are any benefits (health insurance, retirement plan, profit sharing) offered to employees? How does working in an intentional community differ from other jobs? Do the businesses have any policies (regarding sexual harassment eg.) to protect employees civil rights?

For those concerned about providing positive or at least neutral info about Ganas, has Ganas taken any steps to investigate or address the complaints of its critics? What policies or measures have they taken to prevent violence, sexual predators, illegal behavior? Besides blanket denials and bad-mouthing their critics have they made any changes to handle problems more effectively? These are all things "people interested in Ganas" are probably asking too. If you know or can find out answers I'm willing to hear them, but remember if you want it in the article it has to have a reliable source. Eroberer (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's move on. It looks like the Ganas article started to get very weird on July 22, 2009, when someone (is this user really the editor?) started adding medical details about Mildred. The editor looks confused. Since then, you've been in charge, so to speak. A good article would look like the immediately previous revision, with a concise update on the ugly stuff and a picture of the lovely bookstore/cafe. Taisha24 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, there you are, Taisha24! My thoughts are I disagree for reasons discussed, in part, in sections above. It's probably not useful to go into it again if you're main concern is that I have been dominating the editing lately, in which case I'd suggest you seek input from other objective editors/administrators, such as WikiDao. You can do that by looking at the Dispute Resolution page. I will do more work on the Controversy section when I have time and I wouldn't object to replacing the picture. Eroberer (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Closure" for now then?

I have no further ideas and would personally be ready for the neutrality tag to be removed. Taisha24 (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like to see more neutrality, and more "neutral-to-positive" content from some of the excellent sources already cited would be good, too. The person who put up the {{POV}} tag commented "this reads like an attack article" and I still have to more-or-less agree that it does sound that way at times. So I think that tag should stay up for now.

I do not have any more specific and concrete suggestions about achieving that "neutralization" right now. There are some good, neutral, reliable sources out there, though, that could be further summarized and added to the article. You, Taisha24, and any other editors with a lot of interest in this material, could help with that. That's really what you would need to do to make the article better at this point, actually: summarize what is already in published sources. Again: NO original research by anyone, please. Take your time, though -- you don't have to completely "fix" the article right now! ;)

Eroberer, I respect your perspective on all this, but your further assistance, too, with striving for a more neutral "tone" and with adding more well-sourced material would be, I'm sure, greatly appreciated by all! :) Neutrality can be achieved even among those with strongly held and opposing points-of-view. You could use your relatively greater wiki-experience to help others move in that direction. (I and others without any personal position re. Ganas will of course continue to help out that way, too, but as this article is perhaps more important to you than to just random editors, it'd be great if you could continue to also help, in a "diplomatic" way, new editors who come along to understand the issues and the policies involved better. And thanks again for your contributions and efforts so far... :).

Happy editing, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done some light editing, still just on the first paragraph. WikiDao, do you think that the whole article needs tagging? I'd be fine with only the "History" and "Controversy" sections tagged. Also, what's the other tag about? OK to remove that? Taisha24 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I took down the {{Primary sources}} tag as the article already cites plenty of reliable sources. Let's leave the {{POV}} tag at the top for now; controversies may move around from one section to another before we have enough consensus to remove it. Your other edits look good to me, Taisha. Happy New Year, all! :) WikiDao ☯ 01:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph of History section

As I read this article, the first paragraph of the history section is what first really strikes me as non-neutral. Looking more closely, I feel like the citations may be somewhat misleading. Citations 8 and 10 are clearly about GROW, but are also not about a New York Attorney General investigation. Citation 7 ("State finds quacks...") is clearly about a New York Attorney General investigation, but is not clearly about GROW; instead, it seems to be an investigation into unlicensed mental therapy in general in New York State at that time, and doesn't mention GROW at all. Yet this Ganas article reads as if all the negative findings of that investigation were actually about GROW. If I'm correct, I think bits of this paragraph dependent on citation 7 need to be removed. Could other editors (WikiDao?) please confirm?

I'm hesitant to edit myself given the recent history of this article, but I suggest:

The group that would become Ganas got its start in 1973 when founder Mildred Gordon left New York City for San Francisco's Haight Ashbury. In New York City, Gordon had been administrative director of GROW, an unaccredited school of group therapy that "turned out unlicensed group psychotherapists", founded in 1966 by Gordon and her third husband, Edwin Smith. GROW became the subject of a city investigation in 1972 into "fraudulent use of Ph.D.'s from unaccredited universities", after the New York Times disclosed that at least six of the faculty and directors were "listed as having advanced degrees from nonaccredited and, in at least one case, non-existent universities".

I think that's closer to neutral, although still probably negative. It would be nice to know the results of the investigation; so far, all we know is that the Ph.D.'s may have been used in a deceptive way, not that they were definitively found to be deceptively used. Schneck (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked too carefully at those sources myself yet, but your reasoning sounds valid enough. Your proposed text looks good. I'd say go ahead and make the changes you are suggesting, and if that gets challenged I'll look further into it. Cheers! :) WikiDao ☯ 01:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The state investigation included GROW as well as other practices that were mostly graduates or associates of GROW, it was a network of unlicensed phony professionals who all vouched for each other. The state and city investigations were concurrent, I think that's pretty apparent. Citation 7 ("State finds quacks...") is about the conclusions of the AG's investigation of all the businesses not just GROW, and that's what it's used for. Citation 8 is to explain what GROW was, not it's relation to the investigation, and that's what it's used for. It's not necessary that a reference include all the elements of the paragraph it appears in. I don't think it's misleading but if you want to say there were other people involved in the investigation also, go ahead. I don't think it's that relevant because what does that have to do with Ganas?

I can find info on the results of the investigation but you won't like it. Also I will find source for FFL tax-returns.Eroberer (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if someone doesnt like it and in my case, I find the GROW story interesting. However, if it takes up a disproportionate amount of the GANAS article, then it should be split out in it's own "GROW" article with its own controversy section. I suspect at the end of the day, that's the best way to handle this. The Ganas article mentions Mildred, Grow but does not go into detail, the shooting summary stays in the Ganas article dm (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Taisha24 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that there's a major dispute at this point, so I'll be trying to step back from this. I've wondered about the results of the GROW investigation myself and look forward to finding out. Would love to see increased editing activity especially from the Ganas side, and I also find Eroberer's perspective to be unique and indispensable. What *is* it like to work for a business owned by an intentional community? Happy editing and happy new year, Taisha24 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about the references

I took a look at one of the references, hosted on rickross.com Commune Sex shocker. This does not appear to be a reputable reference for three main reasons. First, on the front page of Rickross.com is its title, the "Ross Institute Internet Archives for the study of destructive cults, controversial groups, and movements". Second, this article was originally from the New York Post so rickross.com is now a tertiary source. Third, rickross.com selectively edited their version, it is not the complete original nypost.com article. The article itself is full of quotes from two former members who were involved in some sort of lawsuit. You'll note the reporter carefully puts language such as "two ex-members claim" and "Enquist and another ex-member, who asked to be identified only by her first name, Kenba, say" around everything vaguely contentious. The counterpoint was pretty much limited to "One commune member called the ex-members' allegations, 'completely and utterly untrue.'" In other words, all the best quotes are hung on these two individuals (one of whom did not give their full name) and not the reporting of the NY Post which sticks to easily discernable on non controversial statements about the shooting, the number of buildings, etc. It's a fun read, but I'm not sure what is usable in there for a Wikipedia article. Thoughts or comments? dm (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Also worth noting its a WP:LINKVIO and Rick Ross has been known to alter such documents on his site, you can check WP:RSN archives for more information The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially when the article is used to source this sentence in the article. The first is all quotes from the article while the second is not supported by the text and should be removed. dm (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• "A lot of the women were on psychotropic drugs, and they would have these therapy sessions with Mildred and others." There were "contractual agreements for international visitors to marry Ganas residents for their citizenship privileges. They acted like a dating service handing out marriage contracts. Basically it's legal sex for money".[18]
• Gordon herself is often mistaken for a psychotherapist .[18]

The Rick Ross site was used because the original could not be found, but now that you've found it I've replaced the reprint with the original. Although I don't think what appears on the Rick Ross title page makes a difference, as the article is not written by anyone associated with that website. "Gordon herself is often mistaken for a psychotherapist" comes from the first line of the article - "...wacky sex sessions with a shrink..." - true it doesn't specifically identify Gordon as "the shrink" but I think it's clear from the rest of the article ("...they would have these therapy sessions with Mildred and others..."), especially as the History section goes into Gordon's history of mis-representing herself as a mental health professional. I'm not aware of any source stating that these two members were involved in a lawsuit, not with Ganas anyway. Is there such a source? And this source makes allegations of arranged/green card marriages, so I will cite it in the summary also.

It seems to me alot of the comments lately are geared toward eliminating sources that are not complimentary towards Ganas, especially in their titles. I think it's good to have a variety of sources within reason, as the NY Times is not God or even necessarily impartial. DM, you have even complained about the use of the word "controversy" in the summary, as if by not saying it, it doesn't exist! But it does exists, and the summary would be clearer by reflecting that. I would like to at least start the sentence "A 2006 shooting incident..." with "There are several controversial issues about Ganas, and a 2006 shooting incident..." You can't deny that even the word controversy is a controversial issue to the editors of this article!

The quotes from the ex-members are in the Controversy section, after all, and do help explain the controversies, especially that the arranged marriages alluded to in the summary are in fact green-card arranged marriages. Which, if anyone cares, is immigration fraud. Eroberer (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re the summary, I guess my reactions are roughly that "obligatory group process" is inherently controversial, and that your proposed text isn't an improvement. Taisha24 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean if you or any other editor decide something is inherently controversial we should never use the word controversial, because the reader is just supposed to understand that and agree with you? I think it's unfair to just say things without saying they are the subject of controversy, if they in fact are. I don't think there's even a source that says obligatory participation is controversial, just thought people should know. It's just ridiculous that current editors want to eradicate any association with controversy, now ResidentAnthropologist has eliminated that entire section. Total censorship IMO. Would you do the same with Scientology? Eroberer (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a Controversy (or "Criticism"?) section, but don't have reliable sources for the things that seem problematic to me, at least not yet. Wouldn't object to your adding an empty section, or maybe something about the arranged marriages. Thought your questions about employees' protections were good ones but don't have any info. Taisha24 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Taisha24. I hate to keep picking on your edits, but the NYTimes doesn't say the businesses support the community, it actually has one member complaining that the profits are too thin. It's always been my understanding that the community was supported by the higher income core group members and the rental income from residents, and the business are only marginally profitable. Also I don't think they practice group marriage anymore, that ended many years ago. Eroberer (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It says, "The group also owns five commercial buildings down the street housing retail businesses that sustain their community." Surely we're not arguing about the difference between "support" and "sustain". Please stand corrected. Taisha24 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)