|
Hello all
An editor has raised concerns about the neutrality of this section. I think it is fine, but I would be interested in any views other might have.
@PNople Happy to discuss your views on the matter here.
Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again. I’d like to discuss this, and it also pertains to the portion we previously discussed in the Lead section.
- I want to begin by stating I’ll try to be much less toxic to everyone in discussion. I was toxic even years back with various users, and I apologize to everyone I did that to (see archived talk pages for De Sade). I instead now want to be welcoming & encouraging to everyone who wishes to discuss issues with me. And if I say anything that anyone doesn’t understand, please let me know and I’ll try my best to describe it in a way for you to understand. I’m very patient, so please don’t be afraid to tell me this. I apologize because I don’t know the standard Wikipedia lingo well, but I’m very willing to learn (so feel free to cite to particular portions of Wikipedia policies when you think that fits into what I’m communicating). What I believe I do know well is critical thinking and analytic procedure, which is what gets us to factual truth.
- My main concern is with factual truth for this De Sade wikipedia page. In this controversy section it refers to ‘facts’ and testimony of alleged victims of De Sade. I myself am skeptical about the existence of valid resources/evidence depicting such testimony and/or facts. And if there aren't any valid resources/evidence then I believe we should state that these claims in these texts have little to no truthful veracity. Everyone, please let me know if you agree or disagree with this previous sentence.
- What we have now is hearsay, which is unreliable. I want to get to the closest we can to the testimony of the alleged victims. So, what are the citations that Dworkin and these resources rely on to claim that these alleged victims testified that De Sade assaulted, or mistreated them in any way? Particularly, @Aemilius Adolphin, since I believe you’re the main user responsible for crafting this Controversy section: Can you please help us find the citations which Dworkin and the others rely on to claim Sade treated others unethically? If you’re also interested, let’s investigate the factual reliability of claims as extensively as we can here. PNople (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that wikipedia isn't an academic article or original research based on primary sources. It is meant to be a neutral summary of what reliable secondary sources say on the topic. Even if we editors think the majority of secondary sources aren't getting their facts right, it isn't our job to try to prove this. The relevant policy is here. I quote: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."
- So the idea that we should check the citations in all the cited secondary sources, see what primary sources they quote then go to the primary sources and reach our own judgement on them, is contrary to wikipedia policy and therefore wouldn't be productive. The major biographies such as Levy, Bongie, Du Plessix Grey and others have hundreds of pages of citations. They have looked at all the court transcripts, depositions, relevant letters and circumstantial evidence and reached their own conclusions. It's not for us to question their conclusions, only to record a consensus if there is one or a disagreement if there is one. I think the controversy section does this adequately, but if you have suggestions for improving the wording I am happy to discuss them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with that policy. But what I’m asking for follows that policy. Honestly I’m incredibly confused about your reply here. I’m asking for your help in providing that complete and objective information. I’m not, nor I’m assuming you are, trying to make the final Wikipedia page engage in dispute. And I don’t want it to influence. Wikipedia works by engaging in dispute behind the scenes so the final page doesn’t do the disputing. So I’m seeking the objective information. Are you interested in having an objective and true final product? If so, I’m requesting that you work with me. I think my questions at the end of my last reply are a good start.
- Please let me know particularly what in this reply you agree with and what you disagree with. To re-state, I believe you’re misinterpreting the policy as applied here. PNople (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To add onto my reply, I’m saying that I believe the current controversy section (& the corresponding portion in the Lead) does not adequately describe the disputed sources in an objective way from a neutral point of view. I’m seeking to improve this, and we need to find better sourcing as I described a couple replies back. These are the reasons I made these requests to you. I believe it’s the best methodology to get to that neutral, objective (true) description of the disputed sources. PNople (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, what makes you believe that all those sources you stated “have looked at all the court transcripts, depositions, relevant letters and circumstantial evidence and reached their own conclusions”? I myself am skeptical of the truth of this statement: they’ve reached conclusions yes, but I’m not sure if they looked at the evidence adequately. My understanding is that the best way to see whether this statement is true or false is to see directly what those sources cite to. Which is why I’ve made the above requests to you in my replies. PNople (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I right in saying that you think we should review all the secondary sources used in this article and rewrite it based only on those authors who adequately use all the relevant primary sources? The problem with this is that under wikipedia policy it isn't our job as editors to review the reliable secondary sources in this way. And authors who have adequately looked at all the primary sources are likely to reach opposite conclusions and editors are likely to disagree on who is using the primary sources adequately. If you want to read the biographies, check their sources and reach your own conclusions that is fine, but it isn't supposed to influence how we present conflicting information on wikipedia. I would recommend you start with Lever, Du Plessix Gray and Schaeffer which have extensive bibliographies. Bongie also has transcripts of the depositions of the women who lodged complaints against Sade. Seaver's edition of Sade's prison letters has a good introduction and commentary on his letters. Phillips, Marshall and Dworkin are really experts in other fields who have read the secondary sources and have reached their own conclusions. I doubt that they have gone to all the court depositions, letters and other documents in 18th century French. But they are still reliable sources under wikipedia policy and their judgements are just as valid (under policy) as that of the biographers. At the end of the day it isn't our job to try to prove that Sade was an evil criminal or a misunderstood outsider enjoying consensual sex. We just record what authors of reliable secondary sources think. None of us were there to witness what really went on between Sade and the women who lodged complaints against him, and there will never be a final "truth" on the matter. But if you think the current wording of the controversy section could be improved, or other sources included, I am happy to discuss your suggestions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ll see if I can find those depositions and transcripts, but why haven’t you cited the direct testimony here? Since you’ve made factual claims multiple times but only relying on hearsay, you should cite the direct testimony to show those hearsay claims are true. Please show the direct quotes for all Wikipedia editors here (the most specific citations would be the most helpful for everyone). That’s what’s most relevant to our job as wikipedia editors, so please provide that.
- As stated in Verifiability, “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.” If a source is unreliable, we should state that for the public in order to follow Wikipedia policy. To be reliable, a source needs to cite to true facts and the sources that reflect it. We use good empirical methodology to achieve this (let me know if you disagree), which is outside what Wikipedia’s policies directly instruct us on.
- And I actually believe Phillips is clearly an expert on De Sade, W.W. Norton wouldn’t have hired him to write a book on Sade if he wasn’t an expert. I don’t know about the other authors you’ve mentioned, but honestly, for gauging reliability & verifiability (which requires us to reach outside of what Wikipedia policies instruct us on), to claim that an author is correct due to some quality of that author is a violation of the logical fallacy of appeal to unqualified authority. In critical thinking, you must weigh each stated factual statement separately to determine truthfulness/falsity. The fact that a particular person made that statement has no bearing in the truth or falsity of that statement (unless it is direct, first-hand testimony of their own perceptions), even if that person has been labeled as an “expert”. PNople (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aemilius Adolphin I’d like to use numbered questions/requests and answers/responses to make this discussion more productive and direct. Please respond to these numbered questions/requests with numbered answers/responses, and I’ll do the same for you.
- Q1. Please show the direct quotes for direct testimony of the alleged victims of Sade for his alleged unethical behavior. If you don’t want to list them all, we can start with one and go from there. (The most specific citations would be the most helpful for everyone. This is incredibly important to gauge the reliability of sources which is necessary according to the verifiability wikipedia policy).
- Q2. What are all the pages in Bongie you described above that include the “transcripts of the depositions of the women who lodged complaints against Sade”?
- Q3. What makes you believe that “Levy, Bongie, Du Plessix Grey and others” “have looked at all the court transcripts, depositions, relevant letters and circumstantial evidence” as you stated above? And why didn’t you include Phillips and Marshall in this list? Please cite specifically if you have sources/citations those authors included that led you to these beliefs. We can do this one by one, so please start by listing just one if you’re relying on sources/citations for these beliefs. PNople (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) My wikipedia time would be better spend making constructive edits to articles. You are mistaken to think that policy requires editors to back up quotes from secondary sources with direct quotes from primary sources. (Can you point to the specific sentences in policy that say this?) If you are interested in finding out what primary sources the sources use and quote, please do the research yourself. I have already suggested several to start with and they are widely available in bookshops and libraries. Several are on the Internet Archive.
- 2) Pages 98-100. But, from memory, there are other quotes scattered throughout his book.
- 3) I've read them. If you want to check it out for yourself, find the books in a good library and check their sources and bibliographies.
- I'm sorry if my response seems terse, but my time is valuable and limited. I think the current Controversy section is fine as it is. But if you want to propose specific changes please post them here and I would be happy to discuss them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aemilius Adolphin I wish you provided the specificity & citations I asked from you. Unfortunately, we’re going to have to change the controversy and lead (& everywhere else in the article which relies on the sources you cite besides Marshall & Philips) because you’re not showing that “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article” (Emphasis added) As required for reliable sources in the Verifiability wikipedia policy. So for anything in this entire De Sade page that refers to those sources in stating that De Sade unethically treated someone, we have to also state something along the lines of, “however, this source does not factually support the allegations against De Sade as it doesn’t cite to, nor cite to any other sources which cite to, any direct testimony from the alleged victims”. You can change the wording if you like throughout the article, but keep the substance.
- This is the best I can propose with the detail on those sources you provided here. Since these sources are not reliable here under Wikipedia policy, I believe the policy says we shouldn’t include a source entirely if it’s unreliable, but I want to keep them, but just state how they’re unreliable for the public. Thanks for working with me so we can follow the Wikipedia policy. PNople (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand policy. When it says, "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article" it doesn't mean that editors should check the footnotes, bibiliographies and primary sources quoted in the cited source in order to reach their own conclusion about the opinion stated in the source. It means that the statement in the article should be an accurate reflection of what the secondary source states.
- So, when the articles says, 'Phillips states "there is no reason to believe that any of this behaviour involved compulsion."' it is giving a direct quote from Phillips. The citation provides full bibiliographic details and a page number for the source. It therefore clearly supports the material as presented in the article.
- The same goes for: 'Gray states that Sade engaged in "psychic terrorism" and that "Sade's brand of sadism was often more mental than corporeal."' it is providing a clear source for the quote. The question of whether Phillips and Gray are right or wrong in their judgements is not one for editors to launch their own inquiry into based on their own analysis of the primary sources.
- If you disagree with what I am saying, you can ask for clarification on the reliable sources noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My proposed changes remain as they are in my last reply. And I believe they follow policy. What you said and cited to in this reply doesn’t change that. The aforementioned sources are not reliable under Wikipedia policy for the aforementioned reasons. This discussion shows that. PNople (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aemilius Adolphin This discussion is open to the public. Anyone can contribute and provide for the specifics needed which I clearly outlined above. But neither you nor anyone else has. As I stated, your last response is, I believe, a misapplication of Wikipedia policy- so it doesn’t change my stance. At this point, my stance on the phrasing of the Sade page is still the same as my 13:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply. How will you incorporate it? I prefer that this doesn’t become an edit war, but you still need to respond to my stance on how this page is to be changed. PNople (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your proposed changes are contrary to policy and I don't support them. As I said, you can check at the reliable sources noticeboard if you don't agree. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aemilius Adolphin We’re at a standstill: Your edits are contrary to policy and I don’t support them. The reliable sources noticeboard is not relevant for me to use currently. PNople (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the best way forward. Your objection to the current version of the controversy section seems to be that the sources aren't reliable. Why then wouldn't it be relevant for you to refer your concerns about them to the reliable sources noticeboard? Failing that, you could try a request for comment. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aemilius Adolphin So I changed my mind and actually just created one: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Portions of several texts on Marquis De Sade disputed as unreliable for being poorly sourced PNople (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
