Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

"Article Removed"

This article has been removed because of a request from the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. Their statement is reproduced below.
STATEMENT
Aesthetic Realism is about how a person sees the whole world--not about homosexuality. The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel is education in the largest sense possible--more comprehensive than has ever been before. It is a true description of the world.
As is well known, there is now intense anger on the subject of homosexuality and how it is seen. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation does not want to be involved in this atmosphere of anger. Therefore, the Foundation has discontinued its public presentation of the fact that through Aesthetic Realism people have changed from homosexuality. And consultations to change from homosexuality are not being given. We do not want this matter, which is not central to Aesthetic Realism, to be used to obscure what Aesthetic Realism, in its largeness and beauty, truly is.
http://www.freedomsring.org/66feature.html
  • Here is the original contents (excerpted to comply with copyright)
Help Is Available for Homosexuals
Having received help in her struggle with homosexuality, a Christian woman wrote me, "I know Aesthetic Realism is not a religious organization but, in a way, that's what made it so encouraging to me. They didn't say homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. But they gave really good explanations as to WHY it is wrong. Regardless of religion or AIDS or society's view, homosexuality is just not a real way to find happiness."
Another thing that impresses me about Rachel's attitude is that she does not seek to justify homosexual practices. She wrote, "Just this week, I received a newsletter from a (name) church I used to attend. They're having a study on homosexuality where they're going to look at the passages that deal with this topic in the Bible. I got the impression from the wording that it is to try to make the Bible say homosexuality is OK. I appreciate that those people don't want to condemn, but I believe that people think it is such an unconquerable feeling that God certainly wouldn't condemn it. For a study like that, I believe you have to know beyond the Bible what is wrong with homosexuality. Aesthetic Realism taught me that, and I am very grateful."
It is unlikely that many homosexual persons will be reading this, but some of you may wish to pass this information on to others who may be eager for help. Some may not want help, but for any who may yearn for change, these addresses taken from literature of the two groups are supplied.
Aesthetic Realism Foundation, 141 Greene Street, New York, NY 10012; (212)-777-4490. This is not a religious organization. Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship Services, P.O. Box 7881, Reading, PA 19603; (610)-376-1146. This group has chapters in various states. They can also point you to many helpful books. ~Cecil Hook (March 2001) []
http://web.archive.org/web/20010703010150/http://freedomsring.org/66feature.html
  • This is evidence that they used to hold different views than they do now, and that they've made an effort to erase materials that discuss its previous views. While they're welcome to do as they please, an encyclopdic reference shouldn't toss things down the memory hole just because a group feels a former viewpoint is no longer politically correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Will, the don't hold different views now than they used to. They still believe that homosexuality is a mental problem caused by one's contempt for the world, etc., they just no longer talk about it because of the flak they got for it, and because they're embarrassed that so many (most?) of their converts soon fell off the wagon and decided they were really gay after all. Notice that AR never said its attempts to change gays was wrong, and they've certainly never apologized for it. That's because they still believe it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of link to "AR is a Cult website"

Our favorite new editor just removed the link to the AR is a Cult site, saying it violates the WP rule about linking to blogs. First, it's glaringly obvious that the site is not a "blog", in just about any sense of the term. It scarcely even meets the definition of a [Personal web page], and that article even notes that "Defining personal web page is difficult". Finally, the WP policy specifically exempts sites that are authoritative. And the site in question is plainly authoritative. It contains the voices of sixteen former members, important evidence such as scans of an ad the AR people took out in major newspapers, direct quotes of actual AR books, and full reprints of articles from the mainstream media (with permission). You'll also note that the mainstream media cited both the site's contributors and the site itself. You want to claim that the site is not authoritative? Fine, let's have that discussion. I'm eager to hear what your criteria must be. And by the way, I haven't restored the deleted site in question so that no one can claim that I'm doing self-promotion; I'll leave that to some other editor. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a self-published website. It's irrelevant whether it's called a blog or not. Statements that a self-published website is "authoritative" would naturally be more convincing coming from someone other than the person who created the website. Skoojal (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(1) You originally removed the site on the basis of it being (you said) a blog. That was the term you used, and the reason you gave. Now you say it's irrelevant whether it's a blog. So:
- (a) Will you please make up your mind about what your criteria is? and
- (b) If you're going to keep changing your positions, how is anyone supposed to take your arguments seriously?
(2) Of course it's a self-published website. You noticed? Show me where there's any policy against citing self-published websites.
(3) About your claim that a site's authoritativeness would be more convincing coming from someone other than the site's author,
- (a) How about the other media outlets who have cited either the site's writers or the site itself?
- (b) How about arguing the issues rather than launching an ad hominem dismissal? I provided several credible reasons why the site is authoritative. You didn't argue against any of these at all. And you've provided zero (I repeat zero) reasons why the site should not be considered authoritative.
The only question here is whether the site is authoritative, and you never addressed that. All you did was discount the arguments out of hand because I was the one who made them. Keep that up, and I'll start dismissing yours for the same reason. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As you probably know, 'blog' is a term that's commonly used to describe any self-published website. There is no absolute policy against citing self-published websites - it's just not allowed in most cases. See the policy here [1], including the words 'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' I do not believe that your website meets this standard. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise. Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:EL is the governing guideline, not WP:V. External links are not sources, and are held to a lower standard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The website I removed does not meet that standard. 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority' are included in links normally to be avoided. And in fact, the web page in question was been used as a source; WP:V does apply to that. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
"As you probably know, 'blog' is a term that's commonly used to describe any self-published website" No, not in my experience. And anyone using the term "blog" to describe something that is not a blog is using that term wrong -- as you did.
"I do not believe that your website meets this standard. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise." Yeah, I did, You haven't countered that at all (unless you count the fact that you dismissed my post out of hand because I was the one who made it).
Will, if you believe that the site that Skoojal removed is actually appropriate, then I hope you'll add it back. MichaelBluejay (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am inclined to dismiss your judgments about your website meeting the standard because you are making them. Such judgments should always be made by someone else - and preferrably by someone who is not so concerned with the article as Will Beback seems to be. You might want to try asking an administrator who hasn't taken a prior interest in this article. Skoojal (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask why you have such bizarre criteria (that we need an editor who hasn't edited the article before), but I can see it's pointless. I give up. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy category inappropriate

Labelling something as 'Conversion therapy' sends a clear message - that its only, or at least primary, purpose is changing homosexuality to heterosexuality through therapy. It's possible that Aesthetic Realism was mainly known for trying to change homosexuals to heterosexuality; that doesn't mean that was ever in fact its only or primary purpose. Nor do a few sources that define Aesthetic Realism as therapy show that it is in fact therapy rather than, as it seems to insist, a philosophy. So the Conversion therapy category is wrong. As Will Beback has urged me to assume good faith, I'd like to urge him to do the same thing. I've explained what my views are on Aesthetic Realism; they are unequivocally negative. Skoojal (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Will Beback's comments on categories above ('Second, one could remove salad dressing from the "Newman's Own" company, and it would still be the same company. But it is salad dressing which made the company a success. And if they did so I'd say we should still categorize it as a salad-dressing maker because that is what it's most obviously associated with. The purpose of this category is the same as any category, to assist readers looking for information on a topic. If someone wanted to know what organizations have been involved in conversion therapy then they should be able to find this article.'): they appear to be a personal interpretation of categories that are contradicted by the guideline, WP:CAT, which says, "Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer, etc. Do not apply categories whose relationship to the topic is definable only as "(Article) is a subject related to (category)", such as filing a teacher directly into Category:Education, an album directly into Category:Music or a book about skydiving directly into Category:Parachuting.'

Will Beback is applying the category in exactly the way the guideline says not to. He is just not on strong ground here. The basic mistake is in thinking that something qualifies as "Conversion therapy" if it is used among other things to change homosexuality to heterosexuality. Conversion therapy means therapies that only change sexual orientation, so it's absolutely clear that Beback is wrong (and this holds even if one were to grant the description of Aesthetic Realism as "therapy"). Skoojal (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is the third time you've quoted the same text. I again ask which category would properly cover the homosexual change therapy for which this group is noted. We've established that it was a main focus, and that it was therapy. I'm open to any solution reflects that sourced information.
The simplest solution, and the one that we had until Skoojal decided to delete it, was Category:Ex-gay organizations. Skoojal has never explained why he deleted that category this topic appears to fit the criteria: an organization aligned with the goals of the ex-gay movement. The goal of the ex-gay movement is to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals, is it not? If so, the category applies ot his article. If not, please give a detailed, sourced explanation of which goals of the ex-gay movement AR has not been aligned with. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that any such category should be used. It's not relevant what the 'main focus' of Aesthetic Realism was or wasn't - something only counts as Conversion therapy if it is therapy whose purpose is to change sexual orientation and nothing else. As for goals of the Ex-gay movement that Aesthetic Realism has not been aligend with these include, obviously, promoting Christianity, and a specific right-wing political agenda. Skoojal (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
that's a misinterpretation of categorization. Turkey is a country in two continents, but we don't use only one category for the continent which it primarily occupies. Instead we use all relevant categories to properly characterize it. As for the goals of the ex-gay movement being promoting Christianity and a right-wing agenda, please provide a source for that. I see there is a Jewish group; in that category, so if that is the standard it'll have to go, along with any other group that doesn't actively promote Christianity and a right-wing agenda according to reliable sources. In other words, more than half of the category. Where should those article be categorized? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The issue is the definition of Conversion therapy - does it include therapies (or philosophies) that happen to involve changing sexual orientation among sundry other objectives, or does it only include therapies that are only about changing sexual orientation? Clearly, it's the latter. Your comment above is therefore irrelevant, and doesn't answer my point. Skoojal (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as ex-gay organizations go: one can argue that these don't have to be necessarily Christian, but they should have converting homosexuals to heterosexuality as their main goal. That's not the case with Aesthetic Realism. It would be a serious error to place it in that category. Skoojal (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Aesthetic Realism had converting homosexuals to heterosexuality as their main goal throughout much of its history. It would be a serious error not to place it in that category. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Try actually responding to my argument. Your comments are irrelevant (you didn't even explain what category you're talking about - ex-gay organizations or conversion therapy?) Skoojal (talk)
Try actually responding to the facts, instead of speaking without reference to - or in ignorance of - them. Categories are meant to inform a general readership, not to reflect one individual editor's idiosyncratic terminological definitions. In your peculiar cladistics of therapy, which category fits an organization that marshaled its efforts to "change" homosexuals overtly for most of its history, and clandestinely for the rest? - Outerlimits (talk) 08:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comments above are irrelevant. I see little reason to respond to comments that don't adress my arguments. Skoojal (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. this all strikes me as one big wp:WEASEL WORD issue. Aesthetic Realism was not designed for the express purpose of converting gays to straights. there apparently were people who picked up and used Aesthetic Realism for that purpose, but as far as I can tell no one is bothering to spell out who those people were, what their relationship to AR or to the founders of AR was, or what they though AR was about. I am not about to support this claim, any more that I would say phenomenology is defined by its use by the Third Reich, or that that the Christian moral ethic is defined by its use by Alcoholics Anonymous, or that the Ancient Greek concept of areté was defined by the fact that the Greeks thought homosexuality was an important part of its development. let's differentiate, please, between philosophies and the uses they are put to. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You're simply wrong on your history. It was AR and its founder who asserted that AR was a "remedy" for homosexuality, and it was AR itself that advertised that fact in ads placed in major newspapers. AR hasn't been adopted by anyone outside of its small cult of followers; no one has "picked up" AR or used it for any purpose other than that advocated by AR leaders. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
possibly - I'm no expert on AR. but I am pretty knowledgeable on philosophy, and what I read here is awfully deep for simple gay to straight conversion. note that its basic principles (as listed on the talk) have little to do with sexuality, and read rather like a general guide to enlightened living, and there is nothing in the description of the philosophy that talks about homosexuality. if all they were interested in doing was converting gays, there are far simpler ways of doing it than trying to convince them to live in intellectual non-dualism. maybe what we need to do (before we worry about categorizing this article) is to flesh out this article to show that (in fact) converting gays was the primary motivation.--Ludwigs2 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The article would certainly be improved if AR's role as "gay therapy" were made more prominent (as it once was, but AR adherents have managed to obfuscate their history here through dogged persistence). I don't see how your requirement for simplicity applies: after all, why should something as illogical as "therapy" to change one thing into another be expected to be simple? If simplicity is the criterion, doing "nothing" would be simpler than anything else we can imagine, and as the data shows, every bit as efficacious. I'm not sure "Christianity" or "castration" are particularly "simple", and they too, like AR, have been advocated as "cures" for homosexuality - but of the three, only AR made such conversions their primary activity for years. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
yes, but would you recommend we add christianity and castration to this category? see my point? --Ludwigs2 01:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd certainly advocate adding that category to any group which had advocated and offered Christianity or castration as a remedy for homosexuality! See mine? - Outerlimits (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
yes. I see a distinction between AR the philosophy and the group(s) that offer AR as conversion therapy; you don't. I don't know which position is correct, but in the absence of any clear evidence that AR intrinsically, primarily, and as a whole advocates conversion therapy, it should be left separate from the category the same way that Christianity and castration are. --Ludwigs2 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a distinction without a difference: no one outside the AR cult seriously advocates AR as philosophy. In any case, this article is about both AR the philosophy and AR the organization, so any tag that would apply to one of those applies to this article. AR the group didn't do any thing that Siegel didn't approve (before his suicide), and there's no reason to believe that promoting itself as therapy for homosexuality was an exception. - Outerlimits (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where yo are getting the requirement that things can only be categorized is they were designed for the epxress purpose expressed in that category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
that's the nature of categorization. categories lump together things that have some primary common characteristic. Bluebirds are naturally categorized as birds, but less likely to be categorized as 'things that are blue' because their 'blueness' is less central to them than their 'birdness'. --Ludwigs2 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
We categorize Woody Allen as a standup comedian, a short story writer, an actor and a director. He was a standup comedian first and he is a film director foremost. But we still use all of those categories because they are all important aspects of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
However, we don't normally categorize him in the categories 'people with glasses', 'famous short people', or 'self-deprecating jews', even those are all perfectly accurate descriptions. we don't use the first two categories because they are not particularly central to Allen's work, and we don't use the last two categories because there are people in the world who would take offense at them. Homosexuality is a sensitive topic, and categorizing people or groups as having a relationship to homosexuality should not be done unless it is unambiguous and clear that that relationship exists. --Ludwigs2 22:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on the number of sources, I'd say that the relation of this group to changing homosexuality is clear and unambiguous. One of the sources says that this appears to be the main focus of the group. It is the topic about which the group took out advertisements in distant cities, which they didn't do for any other topic. This is the topic that AR members went on national TV shows to discuss. This is the topic that caused the group to almost continuously picket outside the offices of the New York Times, and even occasionally outside the homes of editors, plus similar protests at other newspapers and magazines that "refused" to report on their success in changing people from homosexuality. Can you explain what you find unclear or ambiguous? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
that is certainly worth discussing. however, based on what I read in the article at present, there's no indication that was a primary goal of AR. I mean, if we start categorizing this way, then should we go on to say that San Francisco is a city that promotes homosexuality? or that Dow Chemicals (as a defense contractor) advocates for large scale death and destruction? SF is a mecca for gays, yes, and Dow produces some stuff that will literally fry the skin off your bones, but it would be unfair to say that either promotes those things. this is what I mean when I say you're making a category error - you are failing to distinguish between the thing, and the uses people put the thing to. --Ludwigs2 01:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
A frying pan can be used as a murder weapon, but that is not how they are sold. On the other hand, AR was sold as a way of changing from homosexuality. That is the way it was most prominently promoted, as you can see from the sources provided on this page. Is there still disagreement on that point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Frying pans have been used countless times in the media as instruments of domestic violence and self defense. they are not 'sold' that way because murder is illegal, but they are commonly recognized as a household weapon. the fact that AR was prominently 'sold' as a form of conversion has more to do with the fact that homosexuality is a contentious issue, and cults love to use contentious issues as trolling grounds. Siegel himself never promoted its use that way, and (from the text) conversion was always presented as a side-effect of AR, not as its primary goal (note for instance that many adherents did not convert or did not stay converted, but it does not seem to have affected their belief in AR). --Ludwigs2 01:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I think we agree that the AR was promoted as a way to change. It appears that the disagreement here is over the simple issue of whether a group can be included in a category that is not their primary goal. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
that's it, yes. And frankly, I wouldn't normally worry about it, except that the category itself is a bit loaded (like any category that deals with 'hot-button'). I'd just like to make extra sure that AR would self-categorize this way, to be sure it's not a biased view delivered by detractors. --Ludwigs2 22:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The category is under discussion on its talk page and may change to the broader "Changing sexuality". As for this group, we have sources that say the "the main emphasis appears to be changing homosexuals into heterosexuals", that "250 persons rallied on Boston Common yesterday to demand that The Boston Globe "print the truth about Aesthetic Realism," a New York-based educational foundation that claims that gay men and lesbians can change and become heterosexual", and that "from the 1960s through the '80s, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation ran a program intended to turn gay people straight, and claimed to have successfully "changed" 150 people". that last one indicates that the specially started a program for changing sexuality. So it appears that they have created programs primarily to deal with homosexuality. As for your last point, that's a tricky one. The group has not only dropped its advertisements of the therapy but have made a concerted effort to erase evidence that they offered it in the past. Do you think that an objective encyclopedia shold allow people or groups to pretend that the past never happened? Do you support the use of he memory hole? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I think an 'objective encyclopedia' should not be relying on categories to make points. if AR is currently and systematically trying to overshadow it's relationship to conversion therapy, that only bolsters my belief that they should not be categorized as such (any more than - again - the catholic church should be categorized in 'organizations that use torture', despite their history with the inquisition). this isn't the memory hole - I have no problem with conversion therapy being discussed in the article as part of AR's history - but clearly they do not want to be categorized that way, and we should not force it down their throats. Now, if the title of the category were something like 'Techniques for changing sexuality' that would be different, since AR clearly was a technique offered for that purpose, and that title removes the insinuation that AR is entirely about CT. but that would be such a short list of techniques that I doubt it would make a particularly useful category. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Ludwigs2, thank you for your comments. I think how a subject prefers to be described is pretty much irrelevant. Our responsibility is to describe things accurately, which is not necessarily how the subjects want to be described. I remember seeing the FAQ on a racist website that went something like this (paraphrased): "(Q) Are you racist? (A) No! We simply believe that all races should be carefully segregated for purposes of racial purity. But we're not racist or anything." AR is very similar. Despite actively trying to help gays become straight for over two decades, AR now writes on one if its websites, "AR never saw homosexuality as something to cure." That's just inaccurate. In short, I think our allegiance has to be to the facts, not to what AR might want. MichaelBluejay (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

convenience break

The fundamental issue is the definition of Conversion therapy. It is it therapy aimed simply at converting homosexuals to heterosexuality, or is it therapy (or philosophy) with multiple objectives (including eradicating homosexuality, along with ending poverty, war, racism, and whatever). In my view, it's the former. There is no basis for the latter interpretation. The issue is not about the definition of categories themselves, as Will Beback has claimed. Skoojal (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You've never answered my request for a source for your definition of the ex-gay movement's goals. It was the deletion of this article from "ex-gay organizations" which precipitated this dispute. This group promoted itself as providing therapy to change people from homosexuality. At the time, 1970-1990, they did not promote themselves to the same degree for any other purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
What sources do you suppose exist that contradict my view of what an ex-gay organization is? Find them, if you think they're there. Regarding Conversion therapy: that "this group promoted itself as providing therapy to change people from homosexuality", does not meet the definition of Conversion therapy. See the article and its sources. Skoojal (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not the way Wikipedia works. You've made an assertion and have made edits based on that assertion. Please provide sources which say that the goals of the ex-gay movement include "promoting Christianity and a specific right-wing political agenda". Without a source it appears to be your own opinion. If the goals of the ex-gay movement are limited to changing people from homosexuality then this article belongs in that category and shouldn't have been removed. So please provide your sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
My unsourced assertions are as good as anyone else's unsourced assertions, including yours. There shouldn't be an assumption that, if I don't offer a source, you must be right, even if you don't have a source either. The argument you mention above is not my main argument; I've offered others. In any case, as this argument is becoming increasingly unproductive, I suggest that you invite other editors to take an interest in this dispute, or perhaps place a request for comment. Skoojal (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I've provided sources that show this groups promoted itself as providing change from homosexuality. You've provided none to contradict that. You've asserted that this groups doesn't align with the goals of the ex-gay movment, but you can't provide a source for what those goals are. We already have sources that say the goal of the ex-gay movement is to change homosexuals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I have provided no sources to contradict the claim that Aesthetic Realism 'promoted itself as providing change from homosexuality' because I don't have to. I'm not interested in disputing that, as my arguments don't depend on this point. You've provided no sources to show that any group that has ever tried to change homosexuality counts as an 'ex-gay organization.' I repeat my suggestion to ask other editors to address this issue, because this dispute is becoming increasingly repetitive, tedious and unproductive. Fresh perspectives would help. Skoojal (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The goals of the ex-gay movement appear to be to change homosexuality. If so, then this article belongs in that category. Do you have a source for their being other goals? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
'Appear' is not a source. Your comments are not relevant to the argument I've been making. Skoojal (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The suggested guideline at WP:CAT is: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?". I think this quite clearly meets that test. I think another functional question we can consider is, "Would a reader looking for articles on Conversion therapy be interested in Aesthetic Realism?" I'd have to say yes, they would.--Trystan (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The first part of that asks a question which is only one of many questions that have to be asked; it does not decide the issue. The second part is clearly wrong. Conversion therapy is a well known, controversial subject likely to attract widespread interest; Aesthetic Realism is a tiny fringe group very few people care about. Plenty of people would be interested in the former but not the latter. Skoojal (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the size of the group determines whether or not it fits into a category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it did; please respond to my actual arguments. Skoojal (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
What is your actual argument? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The main argument is that an ex-gay organization is an organization that is mainly concerned with converting homosexuals to heterosexuality (and/or, an organization that defines itself as an ex-gay organization). Aesthetic Realism isn't either of those things. Skoojal (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This thread concerns the "conversion therapy" category, not the "ex-gay organizations" category. Do you have any argument relevant to this thread? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Like any other thread, this is about whatever is being discussed here. I've repeated my points about why 'Conversion therapy' is wrong a number of times: the article defines Aesthetic Realism as a philosophy, not as a therapy, and it doesn't say that homosexuality was its specific concern. If you wanted to add the Conversion category, you'd have to rewrite the article. Currently it reads, 'Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.' That might have to be changed to something like, 'Aesthetic Realism is the therapy to cure homosexuality created by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.' Skoojal (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's absurd. That is not the standard for categorization. For example, American Family Association does not say onything like that, yet it is in Category:Ex-gay organizations. You're making up rules that aren't used elsewhere on Wikipedia. We've already provided ample sources to show that this organiztion is inovled in change from homosexuality. If there's no objection I'll add them =to the article and re-write it based on them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing the American Family Association article to my attention. I have just removed the ex-gay organization category from it, since there appears to be nothing in the article that justifies this (being opposed to homosexuality, or thinking it can be changed, isn't enough to make an organization an ex-gay organization). Your view that an ex-gay organization is anything that is 'inovled [sic] in change from homosexuality' is unsupported. I emphatically do object to your readding the ex-gay organization category to this article. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Will, you have my support for categorizing AR as Conversion therapy. Skoojal's criteria is nothing short of bizarre. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Articles aren't placed in categories because two editors agree they should be. Michaelbluejay's comment about my 'bizarre' criteria is just an insult from someone who's run out of arguments. Skoojal (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia does work by consensus. You didn't like "ex-gay organizations", so this category was created. Then you nominated it for deletion, but that didn't find sufficient support. Now you want to to delete this category as well. It's beginning to look like you're on a mission rather than trying to find a solution. Unless you can propose a better category, I'll restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia does work by consensus. There does not appear to be a consensus for the Conversion therapy category. Nor do there appear to be any rules about how the Conversion therapy category is used or what articles it applies to. You may want to help fix that, or discuss it on the Conversion therapy category talk page. Skoojal (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, I think you have to find some support for your positions. You can just march in here and dictate that your way is the only way, dismissing everyone else out of hand. You don't think AR should be classed as Conversion Therapy despite other editors who think it should? Fine, then rally some support for your position. As long as it's just you saying it, then considering the nature of your discourse, I'm not taking your objection very seriously. (And if you want to claim that this entry means I'm desperate and have "run out of arguments", then great, have a ball.) MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. You said "Articles aren't placed in categories because two editors agree they should be." Okay, how about three editors? (I see that you just Undid Outerlimits' edit to re-add conversion therapy.) Maybe you can explain how your lone, solitary position on this trumps what three other editors think? In any event, at what magic number does consensus occur, according to Skoojal? I can just see you saying, "Articles aren't placed in categories just because 25 people who constitute 95% of the active editors say they should be." MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting about Ludwigs2. Take a look at his comments - he seems to agree with me. Actually, there are two editors who think the category does not apply verus three who think it does, so you're ahead, but only just. I may place a request for comment, although I think the best way to resolve this dispute would be to establish some rules about what the Conversion therapy category means and which articles it does and does not apply to. Skoojal (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is beyond ridiculous. AR is most certainly an "ex-gay" group in exactly the same way as Christianity-based "ex-gay" groups: they all maintain that through the study of a given philosophy, homosexuality will change. In AR's case, they maintain that homosexuality will change as a result of having less contempt for the world, while the Christian groups say that homosexuality will change as a result of "accepting Jesus Christ as your savior," or some such thing. The fact that AR no longer attempts to change people from homosexuality does not mean that they no longer hold the view that homosexuality can change as a result of studying the AR philosophy. The fact that they are now trying to sweep this whole chapter of their history under the rug does not mean that they should be given a pass, simply because they say they should. One cannot divorce a thing from its history; that's like saying that Germany should not be mentioned in a discussion of Nazism because it is no longer a Nazi country. Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a person who wishes to research "ex-gay" groups is ONLY interested in learning about groups that are currently offering "change" therapy. Indeed, such a person may well be researching the history of "ex-gay" groups. In that case, they should be able to find all the relevant information in one place. Is there a reason why AR (or this article) cannot be listed in more than one category? I see no such reason, other than some extremely anal nitpicking by somebody whose motives I suspect. Marinero (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Back Again

Back again after sixteen months! Just saw the comments made by Marinero below, which do seem rather sadly to have a fair amount of hard-edged invective in them as well as an unhealthy dose of sarcasm. People who live in glass houses, after all. Seems to me the danger with this whole Wiki article is the rather hardened antagonism on the part of some of the editors toward Aesthetic Realism for purposes which I don't really understand but which do seem overly personal to me and even alarmingly vengeful at times. It really is almost impossible to take their description of Aesthetic Realism as impartial and objective and therefore as accurate. My only response is that I try to judge a philosophy, idea, religion etc. on the merits themselves. Even the finest philosophies have had imperfect practitioners. I really don't care about somebody's personal life or how many times they have been married and all that kind of character assassination. It's the ideas themselves that rise or fall on their own merits and I have in my passing acquaintance with Aesthetic Realism found the philosophy itself quite sound and very worthwhile. I am quite sure there are many people who study Aesthetic Realism whose lives reflect quite well on it. I have met several. I am also quite sure there are imperfect people who study Aesthetic Realism just as there are imperfect people in churches and social service agencies and the ASPCA and the Red Cross and volunteering at soup kitchens and food pantries. But what is admirable about all those organizations is still admirable about them nevertheless. user: digital scribe 23:10 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.68.50 (talk)

You know, scribe, it really is most curious how you never engage me directly, preferring instead to leave little "reviews" of my posts. Just who is your intended audience? I assure you, anybody who chances upon this page is very unlikely to just read your little "review" and come to a conclusion about AR just from that. Anyway, I'll try to keep this brief, as the purpose of this page is not to debate the pros and cons of AR, and there has been far too much of that already here.
For the umpteenth millionth time, I will state that I have no particular quarrel with the PHILOSOPHY of AR. Read that sentence again; let it soak in. Absorb its meaning fully, once and for all. Got it now? Good; now you can stop repeating that falsehood. I do, however, believe that the philosophy has been misused by the AR organization (and Siegel himself, while he was alive), with the result that AR is nothing more and nothing less than a mind-control cult. I say this from my own personal experience as a former "student" of AR. Maybe that will help you understand my "antagonism." I'm not going to rehash everything I've said to justify my conclusion, but it is all easily available in my previous posts, should you care to read them. - Marinero 24.16.237.186 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, Marinero, for not responding to your posting sooner. I don’t come here very often and I just read it today. It does seem to me that your posting makes my point. For good or ill, you are a person with an axe to grind and such people are seldom very reliable sources of balanced impartiality concerning their subject. I’ve known quite a few bitter Catholics, for example. And while I accept the validity of their individualized bad experience with the church I wouldn’t go to them if I wanted an accurate portrayal of Roman Catholicism itself. For someone who doesn’t have a quarrel with the philosophy, you sure do a lot of quarrelling with it. I have indeed read your posts and I don’t see anything in them that points to the positive value in Aesthetic Realism with specificity and depth. They are rather unenlightening on that subject. I think your argument would have more weight if it were more balanced. Your purpose seems to be other than that, at least that’s how it strikes me although I can cetainly agree that you seem to be more angry with individuals in the concrete who study Aesthetic Realism and with whom you've obviously had a falling out than with the philosophy itself in the abstract. -- Digital Scribe 23.10.11 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a blog where one reviews posts. Please keep the discussion on the topic of this talk page: improving the article. Jonathunder (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Yes, LoreMariano is an Aesthetic Realist, but Wikipedia is an open community, so let's give her a chance to learn the ropes. Even people with biases are capable of writing NPOV, and some of her edits have indeed improved the article. She certainly seems willing to try to be reasonable, unlike the infamous Arnold Perey/samivel. And if she's not, then there are enough fair-minded editors here to catch the problem.

About her idea that criticism shouldn't go in the first paragraph, I decided to use the Scientology article as an arbiter, before I even looked at it. Once I opened it I saw that indeed, the cult allegations aren't in the first paragraph. So I'm willing to concede that the criticism of AR need not be in the first paragraph.

I do think AR's tenets are best presented in list form, not paragraph form. People spend their lives studying these concepts and there's some weight to them. Three big concepts are too much to digest in paragraph form. Also, this is traditionally how AR has presented their 3 (sometimes 4) tenets over the years, so it's true to the source. However, quoting Siegel directly hides the implications of his statements (e.g., AR doesn't just state that people have a tendency towards contempt, they think it leads to unhappiness and even insanity).

Yes, the "Public presentations at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation..." paragraph was an obvious advertisement, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. MichaelBluejay (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

LoreMariano apparently prefers to discuss her problems elsewhere, as opposed to on the article talk page, or discussing them with those whose actions she dislikes. Regardless, lists don't belong in intros. I've put the "tenets" in sentence form. If they are too much for the lead, they should go in the body of the article. If you wish, move them there under the philosophy heading and explain them as much as you think they need to be explained - they really don't belong in the lead at all. The Ten Commandments don't appear as a bullet list in the lead of "Christianity" - heck, they aren't quoted in any form in the lead of Ten Commandments - and these three tenets certainly don't need to be quoted in the lead of this article. - Outerlimits (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Everyone, please remember to focus on edits, not editors.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Still learning about consensus, so please bear with me. Since my edits are being discussed, here are my initial comments:
It is my understanding that the initial description of Aesthetic Realism should be in keeping with the way the source would describe it. I agree with Michael Bluejay that three big concepts are too much to digest in paragraph form and are better stated in bulleted points. That being said, the most objectionable thing to the way the lead entry now stands is that quote marks are put around sentences that are not quotes. I am willing to work with everyone on a description that is acceptable to all, whether a direct quote or paraphrase that is accurate.
The first link to the Bklyn Assemblyman article is bizarre. I don’t see that it has any bearing to the biography of Eli Siegel and only serves to put forth a negative POV.
Can someone please explain to me why a reference link would be put this way: \cite web |last= Reiss|first= Ellen|coauthors= |title= |url= http://www.aestheticrealism.org/tro1749.html |date= 22 July 2009|work= The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known|publisher= Aesthetic Realism Foundation|accessdate=27 July 2009\" instead of just pasting in the url? The link I used pointed directly to the principles http://www.aestheticrealism.org/tro1749.html#principles
About the sentence: “Aesthetic Realism is probably best known by the claim that gays and lesbians could stop being homosexual” -- I’m not sure that this is a true statement and at any rate, it's not a fact that can be easily verified.
I am more than willing to work towards a lead entry we can all live with. The lead has degenerated quite a bit in the last day. LoreMariano 19:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoreMariano (talk • contribs)

LoreMariano, thank you for discussing edits respectfully. On listing AR's tenets in bullet form (as they've been traditionally presented), you and I agree but Outerlimits does not. Would any others care to weigh in on this? Lore, since you're new I should explain that Wikipedia operates by "consensus" but that doesn't mean "democracy". That is, we don't say that it's 2-1 in favor of bulleted points so that's what we'll have. Outerlimits has no authority to insist on his version, but neither do you and I put together. The best resolution is when there's a substantial agreement among a significant number of editors. When the number of editors is small then there's no easy answer. In extreme cases editors can request mediation or arbitration, but those processes are slow and are considered a last resort. There is nothing preventing us from continuing to change the article to the way we prefer, and then Outerlimits continuing to change it back to the way he prefers, except that there's a rule that there can be no more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, and when there's a flurry of reverting an admin will generally come by and lock the article so no one can edit it until an agreement can be reached.

I agree with removing the quotes on sentences that aren't actually quotes. I think you're talking about the third sentence, possibly also the first, but I think we agree that #2 is verbatim from Siegel.

I can't speak to why the Village Voice article is the first cited regarding the origins of AR. My guess is that someone was looking for a third-party source to quote and that was the easiest one to grab. The Jewish Times article would be better, since it's more specific to AR itself rather than to the funding controversy. You're free to find some other (non-AR, third-party) source and replace the one that's there.

About your question about how a source is cited, have a look at the footnotes at the bottom of the page. By formatting the cite with all that weird code, the Footnote format is generated automatically.

I think it's possible to verify that AR is best known for its program to change gays, for starters by looking at all the press that AR has received, including the ads it purchased. It bought ads in three major newspapers to tout the gay remedy, not to tout its answer to racism or poverty, or its teaching method. It got TV time to talk about the gay remedy, not to tout its answer to racism or poverty, or its teaching method. The only radio interview I've granted about AR was to OutQ on Sirius, and you can guess what they wanted to talk about. There was one article I'm aware of about the AR teaching method, but it's in the minority. In 1971, according to "The H Persuasion", there were about 100 people studying Aesthetic Realism, but membership then grew and peaked during the gay cure years, and since that program was discontinued, membership has shrunk again to about 100. And if I'm not mistaken, AR had more consultants dealing with the H issue than with any other specific topic. If you have any evidence that AR is best-known for some other issue, I'm sure we're willing to consider it. MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. From the AR book _The H Persuasion_, p. xvii: "[T]he request for consultations [to learn how to change from homosexuality] became an almost overwhelming demand." I don't think AR ever got such a similar response from people looking to remedy racism, poverty, etc. MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead of an article - the section before the table of contents - is meant to be a concise overview of, and introduction to, the article. In good articles, it will consist of 1 to 4 paragraphs. Lists and bullet points belong elsewhere. See WP:LEAD. The lead is not a place for details, but for overview. Many leads have no citations at all, because all of the material that appears there appears elsewhere (with proper references) in the article. Unfortunately, in contentious articles, this is generally not possible and citations are needed in the lead.

Consensus, of course, necessarily involves compromise. I have no objection to listing the three statements as bullet points in the body of the article, as I've already pointed out, though even there, bullet points are still considered stylistically inferior to actual prose.

Now, those bullet points should actually be sourced to a publication with Eli Siegal's name on it, rather than to a self-published newsletter that simply asserts that Eli Siegal said them somewhere or other. We want to cite the original occurrence. If these are not actually his quotes, it's even more important to cite who is asserting that these are the three most important principles, since it seems there is some fluidity as to what's "most important" in AR.

As to quality of references: ideally we want to cite third parties, rather than parties with conflict of interest (students and former cult members). It's improper to - which has been admitted to elsewhere as a goal - manipulate references to ensure that a particular point of view (that of the students) appears as the first reference in the article, as opposed to the opposite point of view (that of former cult members). The appropriate reference is a third party reference. Of course, third parties write about Aesthetic Realism far, far less than students and former cult members do. The first few pages in most Google searches on the subject will be cluttered with the output of interested parties rather than truly citable references. So by all means if you find some other third party publication to use for the first reference, substitute it. In such a circumstance, the Village Voice reference can be moved to a point later in the article with a discussion of the small disturbance about the ultimately withdrawn pork. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I refer to students and former cult members to honor the rights of the two sides to reasonably label themselves.

Thank you for the explanations on consensus and on reference link formatting.
I am reverting to a more neutral point of view until we can hash out future edits we all agree on.
Regarding the opening paragraph: Can Outerlimits please provide samples of what he considers “good articles”?
Regarding the tone of first paragraph: I have to defend the right of Aesthetic Realism to be described in its terms before other views are presented. Again, the second and third paragraphs present opposing views and in all fairness to Aesthetic Realism, the opening paragraph should be true to the source.
I would agree that Aesthetic Realism is best known in the gay community for the change from homosexuality but there are large demographic areas in which it is more known for its explanation of poverty and racism. LoreMariano (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Did I respond to a robot? Is Sine Bot an automated message?
It's bad form to revert to your preferred version when disputed passages are under discussion. "More neutral point of view" is not a synonym for "the version I prefer". The version you reverted to is certainly not more neutral.
I will provide a list of what Wikipedia (not I) considers good articles: WP:GA. Articles of yet higher quality are featured articles.
No one has attacked the "right" of Aesthetic Realism to be described in its own terms, so there is no need for you to "defend" it.
And the knowledge of Aesthetic Realism's fascination with homosexuality and its claims that it made gays straight is not by any means limited to the gay community; if anyone in the general public has heard of AR, that's generally why, which is perfectly understandable, given the national publicity AR sought and achieved by this means. Of course, the very young may have missed this little bit of history. In contrast, AR's concern with poverty and racism is virtually unknown to the general public.
Sinebot is a bot that signs the postings of people who don't sign for themselves. - Outerlimits (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
While AR might be best known for various other things in various other circles, that's not really the point of the sentence (or why that sentence exists in the summary in the first place). The point is to state what AR is best known for *overall*. In your response you don't seem to disagree that AR is best known for the gay change program overall, just that certain groups know it better for other things.
Although I don't favor the revert, I'm content to refrain from editing until we can hash things out. How about you offer your suggested introduction here on the Talk page? Or do you like the introduction you reverted to the way it is?
Don't worry about bots (automated programs), they roam WP cleaning up all manner of little editing issues on both article and Talk pages. They don't make their own posts on Talk pages, just edits, so you didn't respond to one. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I've been looking for an authoritative source for the 3-4 tenets of AR. Amazingly, they don't appear that way in _Self and World_, which is essentially AR's Bible. They appear everywhere else that way, and by everywhere else I mean not AR's books. They do appear in the center-spread ad in the NYT on Jan. 10, 1990 (pp. A14-A15), appearing like this:
Here are three principles of this great, ever so needed education, stated by Eli Siegel:

[1] Man's deepest desire, his largest desire, is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
[2] The desire to have contempt for the outside world and for people and other objects as standing for the outside world,
is a continuous, unseen desire making for mental insufficiency.
[3] The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites.
[Self and World (New York: Definition Press), pp. 1, 83]
Note that _Self and World_ does *not* list these is three separate items. Page 1 includes items 1 and 2, and page 83 includes item 3, all in paragraph form. From page 1:
 Preface: Contempt Causes Insanity

 The First Question

 Is it true, as Aesthetic Realism said years ago, that man's deepest desire, his largest desire, is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis?
 And is it true, as Aesthetic Realism said later, that the desire to have contempt for the outside world and for people and other objects
as standing for the outside world, is a continuous, unseen desire making for mental insufficiency?
From page 83:
 It is perhaps the most compact and comprehensive introduction to an understanding of Siegel's central idea:
"The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites."
Page 1 is Eli Siegel himself, page 83 is Martha Baird Siegel quoting Siegel.
Despite the fact that the tenets don't appear in line-item form in _Self and World_, I still think they should be presented that way in the intro because (1) it makes it a hell of a lot easier to read, and (2) this is *generally* how the tenets are presented. It's how I'm most familiar with them. For example, I'm sure more people saw the NY Times ad than bought _Self and World_. Anyway, I think _Self and World_ would be a good cite. In theory we could cite the ad, but that's awkward, especially because it would look like we're citing the NY Times per se, not a purchased ad in that newspaper. MichaelBluejay (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
These tenets, then, are not a summary by Eli Siegel of his own philosophy? They are instead someone else's formulation based on extracts of his writings? That's quite remarkable; one would think that the ARF would make this clear when they publish them, since their presentation makes it seem like a quotation. To say they are "stated by Eli Siegel" seems almost deceptive; at best, it seems, they were culled by someone else from his writings, changed from questions into statements, and elevated to tenets. So there's even less reason, then, to present it as bullet points. It's reasonable to have the article describe what AR thinks of itself, but it's completely unreasonable to allow that organization to determine an article's orthography. The standard practice here is to use prose rather than lists, and certainly to use prose in the lead. As I stated above, consensus necessarily involving compromise, I have no objection to listing the three statements as bullet points in the body of the article, even though it's now apparent that Siegel himself didn't present them that way, but they should not appear as such in the introduction. Perhaps Siegel knew more than his followers in his choice of presentation. - Outerlimits (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Outerlimits, I'm going to ask you to trust me on this one. Remember, I'm a former member, I've been on the inside. The AR people might be deceptive about a lot of things, but definitely not this one. The (variously) three or four tenets were ubiquitous, even while Siegel was alive. The "four fundamental principles" are listed on p. vii of _The H Persuasion_, written by one of the book's contributors, attributing them to Siegel. And you can rest assured that if Siegel didn't like them being presented that way (in the book and everywhere else) he would have said so, and you can be equally assured that if he said so they would have been gone in a heartbeat without and counterargument. They're also not inaccurate: If you read Siegel and try to summarize his philosophy, this is exactly what you come up with. I still feel strongly that these heady ideas are best served as individual list items in the intro. "Standard practice" might differ, but most articles aren't a philosophy centered around three or four distinct and weight points. Practice should be flexible. MichaelBluejay (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I certainly take your word that he didn't object to them, but it's still a bit misleading to say "stated by Eli Siegel". Regardless, the point of the introduction is to present AR to a general readership, not those who are "used to" these tenets to the degree that they'd miss the bullet point format. The content is the same whether the points are separated by bullets and carriage returns or semicolons; but the former presentation is inappropriate to the lead of an encyclopedia article, no matter how good ARF thinks it looks in an ad. We are here to produce an encyclopedia, not a carbon copy of AR advertisements. If the ideas are so heady, they should be elaborated in the philosophy section, where you could devote paragraphs to their explication. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting my position. I'm not saying the tenets should be presented in list form for the benefit of those "used to" seeing them that way. I'm not saying they should be presented in list form because AR thinks they look good in an ad. I'm saying they should be in list form precisely because they best serve the general readership of the encyclopedia that way.
I'm a writer by trade. When concepts get muddied by a paragraph format, because too many disparate ideas are being presented in prose, I break them out into a more easily understandable list. I don't think we're going to convince each other about this. I hope some other editors will weigh in on this subject. MichaelBluejay (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not misrepresenting your position because I haven't claimed to have represented your position; I've presented my hypothesis as to other reasons that may have influenced your feelings on this issue. In any case, there's a strong consensus on Wikipedia that article text should be presented in paragraph rather than list form; I have no objection to us making a "request for comments" on the issue of bullet lists in leads. - Outerlimits (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's make a “request for comments” on the issue of using bulleted lists in a lead description.

If there is no objection to using a direct quote in the introduction, there is this description written by Eli Siegel in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #247 (December 21, 1977), titled: “Aesthetic Realism: A Tripartite Study":

One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt.

I would like to better understand what is meant by a “secondary source” since reference links have been contentious. If a newspaper article about Aesthetic Realism is posted either on the Aesthetic Realism Foundation website or on Michael Bluejay's site, are those articles considered secondary sources because they've been published in a (secondary source) newspaper, or are they considered self-promoting/advertising because the website has chosen to include them in their site? Related questions are: Is there a hierarchy of reliability by source type – i.e., blogs, websites, newspapers? What is considered most reliable? What is considered least reliable?

To answer Michael Bluejay's question: For the purpose of putting this behind us and moving on, yes, I would agree to keeping the entry in its reverted state, including the paraphrased principles in the lead.

LoreMariano (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That quote of Siegel is excellent, but it's not in list format, and now that you've found a good direct quote of Siegel on a description of Aesthetic Realism in paragraph format, it will be harder to argue for the list format that you and I wanted. Anyway, here's the info on how to do a Request for Comment, though I think that's just a tad premature. What I suggest you do first is to present on this talk page the entire introduction section, the way you'd like to see it appear in the article. To answer your questions about sources, see WP:RS. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I prefer either of the options listed below--that is, a direct quote with a citation or the previously edited version which contains a link to Eli Siegel's biography. However, as previously stated, I would also agree to keeping the entry in its present reverted state. I am not contesting paragraphs two and three though I disagree with the POV.
I think I have done everything I can to make my position clear. I would like to suggest that we all agree on one of these options or take it to the next level. LoreMariano (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Option 1: Definition of Aesthetic Realism - a direct quote by Eli Siegel, with citation:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. In The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #247 (December 21, 1977), he presented Aesthetic Realism as a three-part study this way:

One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt. [1]

Students of Aesthetic Realism promoted it as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. [2] Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.[3]

LoreMariano (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Option 2: Definition is paraphrased in bulleted points with a link to Eli Siegel's biography (revert to 23:48, 23 July 2009 version)

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.[4] Its primary teachings are:

  • Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
  • Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
  • The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things in order to see one's self as superior—causes unhappiness and even insanity.

Students of Aesthetic Realism promoted it as a way for gays and lesbians to stop being homosexual (1971 to 1990), and still view it as the answer to poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics allege that, while a number of Siegel's ideas have merit, the Aesthetic Realists comprise a cult. [5] Aesthetic Realism proponents say that their critics are attempting to smear a benevolent, scientific philosophy that is beneficial to humanity.[6]

LoreMariano (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you made so many changes in your last rewrite of the article, we will have to separate out the changes and discuss them individually - I suppose one paragraph at a time will do; I'm limiting my comments to the first paragraph for the moment. Option 1a is best, I would think, which is Option 1 with standard quotation and citation format (I've also made the 2nd sentence more concise):

Option 1a: Definition of Aesthetic Realism - a direct quote by Eli Siegel, with citation:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. He enumerated Aesthetic Realism's three parts as: "One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly. Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites. Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt."[7]

- Outerlimits (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


I like the intro paragraph in Option 1a, but I think this minor rewording is less awkward and flows better.
"Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. Siegel explained the basis of Aesthetic Realism as...
If we can all agree on this, then we can edit the article accordingly and move on to the next bits of the intro.MichaelBluejay (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
How about: He explained it as a three-part study which says:
Is there an objection to the block quote style?
LoreMariano (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(PS - Sorry, I didn't realize I was not signed in when I made the last edit. I deleted the IP address edit and replaced it with this one.)
I can go either way about the block quote. I don't think the language of the "three-part study" is an improvement over what I suggested, but in the spirit of moving things along, I won't object. MichaelBluejay (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I prefer block quote for the same reason I initially preferred bulleted points. Set off, the text is easier to read, particularly on mobile devices. I am on a BlackBerry and it's hard to read as a quote within a paragraph. Outerlimits, if you view on a BB, I think you'll agree.
LoreMariano (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And I oppose block quote for the same reason I initially opposed bullet points. The standard here is that our articles are prose. There's no reason to break this very short paragraph into two paragraphs. I don't use a Blackberry, nor do we format our articles for specific viewscreens, because what looks good on one looks bad on another. People can modify the "skin" they use if they prefer different appearances; I believe there are already solutions for Blackberry such as Wikipedia for BlackBerry. Mobile Wikipedia, Wapedia and other programs and sites referenced here. If we changed the content of our articles for Blackberry, every sentence would be a new paragraph. As for "three-part study", I too don't think it's an improvement, but unlike the blockquote, it's not a deal-breaker. If you think "three-part study" adequately sets up the quote, then I would defer to you. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the formatting is a deal breaker for me. The three large ideas of Aesthetic Realism should stand on their own as a direct quote in a block indent.
Though I prefer the prose in the description of Aesthetic Realism by its founder, Eli Siegel, my vote is to leave the bullet point description. I did not write them nor are they as accurate as they could be, but at least they're clearly delineated.
I think we're back to asking for comments on the use of bullet points in a lead description. We should ask for comments on the use of a block quote style too.
How is this for a neutral description of the issue to submit in the RFC: "Is there a ban on using bullet points or a block indent (for a direct quote) in the lead description?"
LoreMariano (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


No, that's clearly not a neutral description. The issue is not "is there a ban", but "which alternative is better". A neutral description would present the two options and ask which one is preferable, the one with, or the one without, the block quote in the lead. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask for a clarification on what the rules are, not which version is liked best.
How about this as a neutral description: "Editors disagree on whether a block quote or bullet points should be used in a lead description. Please comment."
If you don't like that, please suggest something in keeping with a request for clarification on the rules so that a resolution can be come to based on the rules. If you don't want clarification on the rules but rather a dispute resolution based on differing tastes, that's something else to consider.
LoreMariano (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


What Outerlimits said about paragraph form being more literary and more in keeping with an encyclopedia at first made sense to me. Paragraph form may be more literary, but MichaelBluejay is right. The ideas need space.
Running them all together may be OK if there were more information around the quote, which is the way the original source is written, but it wouldn’t work for a wikipedia lead, in my opinion. It's too easy to jump over the ideas themselves. And that isn’t really what we want.
My vote is to use the quote, but separate each sentence as a bullet point.
From the point of view of Wikipedia reliability, the most reliable summary is Eli Siegel’s own summary. Wikipedia has so much bad press about being sloppy, I think we should use the real thing.
In bulleted points, it would look like this:
  • One, Man's greatest, deepest desire is to like the world honestly.
  • Two, The one way to like the world honestly, not as a conquest of one's own, is to see the world as the aesthetic oneness of opposites.
  • Three, The greatest danger or temptation of man is to get a false importance or glory from the lessening of things not himself; which lessening is Contempt. [8]
    • These are the perfect lead into the longer philosophic explanations of them which are in the article already.
    Sorry LoreMariano and MichaelBluejay, I know you both want to settle this and move on. And I 'm making it more complicated.
    B.K.S.J. (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

    Bullet points or a block quote may be the best way to present these ideas in the body, but would be much too much for the lead. The lead should be a brief prose overview. Jonathunder (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


    To review where we are:
    1) Outerlimits objects to the use of bullet points in the first paragraph on the basis that using "lists" is not in keeping with the prose style of Wikipedia introductions.
    2) A prose style option was submitted by LoreMariano. It used a direct quote with a block indent.
    3) Outerlimits objected to the use of the block indent style, for the same reason he objected to using the bulleted points: "The standard here is that our articles are prose."
    4) A RFC was considered. Outerlimits felt LoreMariano's proposed description of the issue ("Is there a ban on using bullet points or a block indent (for a direct quote) in the lead description?") was "clearly not a neutral description."
    5.) LoreMariano suggested an alternative: "Editors disagree on whether a block quote or bullet points should be used in a lead description. Please comment."
    6) To date, Outerlimits has not commented as to whether the revised description of the issue is acceptable or not.
    7) There is a disagreement between Outerlimits and LoreMariano as to what the RFC should be about. LoreMariano would like clarification on Wikipedia rules as to formatting lead introductions. Outerlimits would like to ask for an arbitrated decision.

    As an alternative, in response to the objection on the use of bullet points and/or a block indent style, here is a third option: a prose introduction which does not use a long direct quote.

    LoreMariano (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    Option 3: Prose Introduction with shorter direct quotes (no block indents):

    Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel. He stated, "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves." His 15 questions: "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?" published in 1955 in the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, asks whether every instance of art puts together opposites such as freedom and order, logic and emotion, simplicity and complexity. The philosophy teaches "that reality has an aesthetic structure and that therefore the deepest purpose of everyone is to like reality or the world as much as possible." [The Right of Aesthetic Realism to be Known, #260, March 22, 1978]

    In Self and World: an Explanation of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel examines how aesthetics is crucial in understanding love and resolving self-conflict. If opposites such as strength and grace, assertion and yielding, can be one in a line of poetry, or music, in a ballet, or a painting, it means these opposites can be one in a person's life as well. However, there is also an opposing hope in every person, to separate oneself from reality, and lessen the meaning of other things and people in order to see one’s self as superior. Contempt is the cause of unhappiness, injustice, including racism and even insanity.

    LoreMariano (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

    With regard to the numbered points:

    • [1] I am not the only objector to bullet points and block indents. The two "sides" on this issue seem to delineate thusly: those who are or were personally involved with Aesthetic Realism prefer to somehow denote the importance of Eli Siegel's words typographically, and those who have not been personally involved with Aesthetic realism prefer a standard prose introduction without such typographical effects. Siegel himself did not resort to such effects in the article from which we are quoting.
    • [5/6] To clarify the history, I suggested that we present the two options and ask which was preferable, and you tacitly rejected this, preferring to present a more general question. RFCs are for specific questions; in this case, the wording would be something along the lines of "Alternative introductions for the article Aesthetic Realism have been presented on the article's talk page, with some editors insisting that bullet points or a block quote be used in the lead, and other editors insisting on a prose introduction. Please voice your opinions."
    • [7] If you want clarification on issues of style, the first step would be to ask at WP:MOS. And no, I didn't ask for an "arbitrated decision", which, on this question, at least, would pretty much be unavailable here.
    As for the new two paragraph version, I think there's far too much detail there. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    LoreMariano, I think you were going in the right direction and then got sidetracked somehow. Option 3 takes us away from the progress we've made, because it doesn't clearly summarize the main tenets of AR right away. I suggest we go back to describing the 3 tenets up front, and use an RfC to help decide whether to list the tenets in list or prose format. Outerlimits has seemed to give you some pointers on how to approach an RFC.

    Outerlimits, it's Siegel, not Siegal. MichaelBluejay (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    Corrected. I suppose I'll have to think of a mnemonic. I thought "i before e" was enough, but clearly...not. - Outerlimits (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

    RfC on the Opening Description

    We need guidance in how to format the opening description. Alternative introductions for the article Aesthetic Realism have been presented on the article's talk page. We are unable to come to a consensus on the use of bullet points, a block quote, or a two-paragraph prose description for the opening. We would appreciate your comments. LoreMariano (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

    • RfC response. An article introduction should provide a brief intro to the fundamental basics and focus on a summary overview of the article. Bullet points and blockquotes should be avoided. Quotations and specific commentary should also be avoided except to sparingly highlight certain points, rarely express a succinct encapsulation by an author, and/or address a particular author or school that is central or a large portion of the topic. Assume the reader knows nothing of the topic area and needs a concise overview in common language. Details and distinctive quotations should be covered in the main article body. --Vassyana (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • RfC response. I agree with Vassyana, good quality prose is what is needed in the lead section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • RfC response. Agree with Vassyana and Martin Hogbin. "Concise overview in common language," is exactly correct. This may indeed mean that some fine points and distinctions meaningful to experts are discussed later in sub-titled paragraphs. Here.it.comes.again (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    reads like a brochure

    This article reads like a brochure for Aesthetic Realism. It is clear that Wikipedia's integrity has been compromised on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.34.34 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    Why do you feel that way? The third paragraph likens Aesthetic Realism to a "cult." Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    @MichaelBluejay; @Outerlimits: Let's see what other comments come in this week. LoreMariano (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

    Well, I suspect we've gotten all the answers to the request for comments at this point. Both answers were as I expected: Prose, not bullet points or quotations, is what is called for in a lead section of a Wikipedia article. How does this seem as the first paragraph: "Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy of aesthetics founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. It sees beauty in art as the unification of opposites, and explains human behavior as the result of two opposite tendencies: to value the world as it is, and to increase one's importance by denigrating others. Aesthetic Realism calls this latter tendency "contempt", and sees it as the root cause of unhappiness and insanity." I would suggest that Siegel's quote be retained and moved down to the body of the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    In reviewing the discussion, it seems to me that the prose description written by LoreMariano of August 3rd is more accurate. Keravnos (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'd be happy to hear what you consider inaccurate in my proposed paragraph. The version of August 3 is, as I mentioned then, too detailed for a lead, selecting out particular passages for emphasis that are really no different from other similar passages, and so giving them undue importance. It might be suitable in the body of the article, but not the lead. I'd suggest that a glance at WP:LEAD might help clarify what we're looking for: concision is key. - Outerlimits (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    I would like to work on the opening paragraph further.
    1) Technically it is "the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism," not "a philosophy of aesthetics." I know you didn't initially use that phrase. It is larger than a philosophy of aesthetics, although it includes that. It is a philosophic approach to reality that sees the questions of people as aesthetic and philosophic.
    2) Yes, Aesthetic Realism does identify the two drives in a person, but it is over simplified here. Aesthetic Realism explains that the self is an aesthetic situation. A person is always trying to put together opposing drives: there is a drive towards the world and a drive towards self as exclusive of the world.
    I am willing to work on a more concise opening description if you are willing to move down the paragraphs on homosexuality and "allegations of cult" to those respective sections. I don't want to open up the body of the article for an editing war, as I'm sure you do not. In keeping with the common format found on other entries on philosophy such as Objectivism and Metaphysics, the heading now titled "Allegations of cult behavior" should be changed to "Criticism."
    Please let me know if you agree that I should work on a more concise opening and the paragraphs on homosexuality and "allegations of cult" can be moved into the body of the article with no assumption that the body is now open for edits. LoreMariano (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    Just a comment in passing: The introduction section should contain an overview of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information.   Will Beback  talk  17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    Let's take the article on Objectivism. The lead presents the philosophic principles, right or wrong, true or false. It doesn't start out "Rand's philosophy has been the object of criticism by prominent intellectuals."
    By the way, I don't think the RfC ever made it to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues page. It is posted on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy page. Is there a way to resend it so that it gets on the Style issues page? LoreMariano (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    As Will Beback notes, the inclusion of all points of view within the lead is not a point that is subject to negotiation, but something that is required by Wikipedia's WP:NPOV:NPOV policy. As to [1] "the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism" vs "a philosophy of aesthetics", if that's the way it is described by its followers, I would have no difficulty with using their preferred phrase (though the non-indoctrinated reader is not going to think the former is "larger" than the latter; as to [2], simplification is necessary in leads; I'm not sure that your most recent wording is clearer than mine, but it's a step in the right direction from your previous effort. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    In terms of concision, LoreMariano's description is two paragraphs long. WP:LEAD states, "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs." It seems her description fits the guidelines. Keravnos (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    The guideline advises concision; the four-paragraph length is a limit, not a goal, and the guidelines do not advise you to include irrelevant detail as long as the final result isn't five paragraphs long. Conciseness and length are related but not identical: the goal is to include only relevant facts, which don't include putting publication details in the lead. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    One WP guideline is to "assume good faith", but after LoreMariano writes, "I am willing to work on a more concise opening description if you are willing to move down the paragraphs on homosexuality and "allegations of cult" to those respective sections," it's clear that her agenda is biased censorship. I won't engage under these circumstances, I'll merely defend the integrity of the article. MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    P.S. Keravnos, who exactly are you? And if you're Arnold Perey (you sure edit like him), (1) Why didn't you say so, and (2) Why have you created a *third* username? MichaelBluejay (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Resend RfC to Wikipedia Style, Referencing, and Layout

    I am resending this Request for Comments as it appears the first request to Wikipedia Style, Referencing, and Layout did not post properly. We need guidance in how to format the opening description. Alternative introductions for the article Aesthetic Realism have been presented on the article's talk page. We are unable to come to a consensus on the use of bullet points, a block quote, or a two-paragraph prose description for the opening. We would appreciate your comments. LoreMariano (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    You already received two comments from uninvolved editors, one of them a respected member of the Arbitration Committee, who both agreed.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    If she wants a do-over, it won't hurt anything; the answer will be the same and all it means is a little more delay in fixing the article. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    I believe she is not asking for a do-over but is saying the original RFC "did not post properly" and in fact it did not post at all on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Style_issues until she re-posted it on 21 August 2009. A programming glitch I'm sure. B.K.S.J. (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

    Actioning requested comments

    The requests for comments have run their course, and it's time to start implementing the elicited suggestions, specifically the removal of bullet points and using actual prose. I've placed the emended prose opening in the article. Now that we've moved beyond that, I think we can begin discussion about Lore's other changes, such as the removal of the external link to MichaelBluejay's site (Aesthetic Realism is a cult). - Outerlimits (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

    FYI the external link you refer to was removed by Will BeBack. The reason is external links are not used in lead-ins to an article. Links to a reference on the Wikipedia page are used, though. I think I am remembering this correctly. B.K.S.J. (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    You are mistaken. There's no need to rely on your memory; see the "External Links" section in this diff, which made many undiscussed changes. -Outerlimits (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Will BeBack moved POVs to the end and reformatted the external links as references on July 23. LoreMariano (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, and he left the external link to MichaelBluejay's site (Aesthetic Realism is a cult) in the external links section, which you subsequently removed in your edit of July 28, without giving a reason for that removal. What was your rationale for the removal of that link? - Outerlimits (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    No, that is not so. On July 23, the last day Will BeBack edited, there was no link to MichaelBluejay's site in the external links section. Michael Bluejay inserted the link to his site into the external links section a few days later.
    This is a copy of the external links section on July 23, as Will BeBack left it:
    External links (on July 23 2009)
    Web site of Aesthetic Realism Foundation
    The Terrain Gallery
    “Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies”
    "Aesthetic Realism: A New Foundation for Interdisciplinary Musicology" by Edward Green, Professor of Music in the Proceedings of the Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM04), Edited by R. Parncutt, A. Kessler & F. Zimmer, Graz/Austria, 15-18 April, 2004.
    Hattersley, Ralph. Review of Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There—Six Artists on the Siegel Theory of Opposites by David Bernstein et al., Popular Photography, November, 1969.
    "Aesthetic Realism and the Answer to Racism" An anthology of writings by people of diverse ethnicities.
    And this is a copy of the external links section on July 26 after Michael Bluejay added the link to his website:
    External links (on July 26 2009, with new link added by Michael Bluejay)
    Web site of Aesthetic Realism Foundation
    Aesthetic Realism is a cult
    The Terrain Gallery
    “Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies”
    "Aesthetic Realism: A New Foundation for Interdisciplinary Musicology" by Edward Green, Professor of Musicin the Proceedings of the Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM04), Edited by R. Parncutt, A. Kessler & F. Zimmer, Graz/Austria, 15-18 April, 2004.
    Hattersley, Ralph. Review of Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There—Six Artists on the Siegel Theory of Opposites by David Bernstein et al., Popular Photography, November, 1969.
    "Aesthetic Realism and the Answer to Racism" An anthology of writings by people of diverse ethnicities.
    B.K.S.J. (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    Let me try one more time to get a straightforward answer from Lore: On July 28, you removed the link to Aesthetic Realism is a cult from the external links section. What was the reason for that, and is there any reason why it should not be restored? - Outerlimits (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

    I didn’t realize it had been added when I reverted to Will BeBack’s July 23rd version. It was inserted without any discussion (July 26th) and in fact Michael Bluejay omitted that he added it in the description of edits: “Re-list AR tenets, add back criticism and identify as such.”
    Michael Bluejay’s site should not be included in the External links section. It is original research—created for the purpose of advancing his position. LoreMariano (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    How is that different than the five or so external links--which you retained--created by followers of Aesthetic Realism for the purpose of advancing their positions? Should they also be removed? - Outerlimits (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    The link to the Bluejay site was removed by Skoojal in August because it does not meet Wikipedia standards. The following is what's left on the Talk page of the reasons Skoojal gave:
    A. The first statement of Skoojal replies to Bluejay's post that his site is “authoritative”:
    "It [Michael Bluejay's website] is a self-published website. It's irrelevant whether it's called a blog or not. Statements that a self-published website is "authoritative" would naturally be more convincing coming from someone other than the person who created the website. Skoojal (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)"
    B. Skoojal's second statement replies to Bluejay's objection to his site being called a “blog.”
    "As you probably know, 'blog' is a term that's commonly used to describe any self-published website. There is no absolute policy against citing self-published websites - it's just not allowed in most cases. See the policy here [3], including the words 'Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' I do not believe that your website meets this standard. If you disagree, it's up to you to show otherwise. Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"
    C. And finally he says,
    "The website I removed does not meet that standard. 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority' are included in links normally to be avoided. And in fact, the web page in question was been used as a source; WP:V does apply to that. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)"
    Skoojal gave definitive reasons. Other editors could add evidence why he is right. B.K.S.J. (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for answering for Lore, B.K.S.J., I'm sure she appreciates it. But you didn't answer the main question: what makes the self-published AR links acceptable, and the self-published anti-AR links unacceptable? What applies to one applies to the other. So I suppose we should remove them. - Outerlimits (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

    I think the answer to what makes the two different is verifiability, but I don't want to go there at the moment. Can you please clarify further what you're saying—you want to remove all the links in the External links section, including to Aesthetic Realism (if Michael Bluejay's site isn't included in the list)? So there would be no External links section at all? If we remove the links from the External links section, then would we also remove them from Footnotes or do Footnotes follow different rules? And lastly, what about including it in the Sites critical...section? LoreMariano (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • May I make a suggestion? Include only a single link to the AR Foundation.
    • I've had experience with a similar, though more intense, dispute on an article about the leader of another group. Once everyone agreed to having just one link the fighting about links ended almost entirely. Such an agreement is clear and it's easily enforceable. Wikipedia is intended as a self contained reference work, not a web directory. There are WP policy reasons for doing this as well, but the most important reason is that it makes sense and seems to work.
    • It's up to editors here to find a consensus. (Which is "Latin" for "no one is actively opposed".) Consensus doesn't have to be explicit - often, it simply means that folks have stopped arguing about an dispute.   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    This makes sense to me. Having a single link will streamline the article. I like the fact that it is clear and easily enforceable.
    I would also like to make a minor change to this sentence to improve the grammar: "Students of Aesthetic Realism use these principles to analyze and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage." I would like to change it to: "Students of Aesthetic Realism use these principles to analyze a wide variety of topics and teach classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage." LoreMariano (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

    There is some disagreement over exactly what constitutes "self-published". By its strictest definition, the website I maintain is self-published, but then again, so is AR's "Countering the Lies" website, and even the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's website as well. In any event, I must point out yet again that "self-published" isn't the same thing as "self-written", which is how the Aesthetic Realists typically try to describe my site in order to try to discredit it. But in fact, the site contains writings by at least a dozen other former members of the group, as well as *many original source documents*, such as AR's newspaper ads, quotes from AR books, and articles from the mainstream media. And when I have time to add them, it will contain hundreds of letters from Aesthetic Realists which have recently come into my possession.

    Which brings me to another issue: Above all, Wikipedia should be flexible. When traditional sources (vs. self-published sources) exist, the traditional sources should be favored for sure. But for an obscure topic such as this one, the pickings for sources are sparse. In that context, sites such as "AR is a Cult" and "Countering the Lies" are some of the best External Links available. And by the way, we *are* talking about External Links here, and not *sources*. The criteria for External Links is not nearly as strict as that for Sources.

    Finally, I think LoreMariano misunderstands original research as the term is used on Wikipedia. If the reference is to something outside of Wikipedia, then it's not original research by definition. Original Research means that Wikipedia is not itself the source of the information; WP's job is to summarize from existing sources. MichaelBluejay (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    So there's agreement, at least, that this article has served as a link farm for Aesthetic Realism long enough, and that all its self-published websites should be removed... with one remaining, not because it's more reliable, or any less self-published, than Michaelbluejay's site - because it most certainly is not - but because it's "official". I have removed all but one of AR's self-published sites, and left the sites that are not self-published in place. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Um, I didn't agree. Actually, I said the opposite, that AR's "Countering the Lies" site *does* belong. But for that matter, I think "Aesthetic Realism is a Cult" definitely should be included. It's simply the most comprehensive independent resource available, with a collection of original source documents not available from any other single source. Can we get a consensus on whether it qualifies as an External Link? MichaelBluejay (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    I would have no strong objection to returning both links. I would have a strong objection to ratifying LoreMariano's removal of the link she doesn't like without removing the links she likes. The article shouldn't be "AR's view of itself'", but"The World's view of AR". That means we can't feature AR's many self-published sites as external links while using "self-published" as a criterion to exclude other links. - Outerlimits (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    As LoreMariano just returned the links she likes while not returning the link she doesn't (without any participation on the talk page), I've restored the link to Michaelbluejay's site that she previously removed without prior discussion. I suppose this is something we'll have eventually to kick upstairs to the External links noticeboard. Twice, if someone doesn't like the first answer. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    Just a reminder: the official guideline is at WP:EL. It basically excludes all self-published sites with the exception of a link to the official website. Read it for yourselves.   Will Beback  talk  07:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    And another reminder - if fighting over this article continues then one way of dealing with the conflict would be to "stub" the article - cut it down to one sentence and rebuild it from scratch relyiong exclusively on reliable secondary sources. From my limited knowledge, there appear to be virtually no significant sources for this topic, so the article might never progress beyond a paragraph. Stubbing would be the electroshock therapy approach - dramatic but sometimes effective.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    I've reduced the external links to the one in the {{Official}} template. Jonathunder (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    There are still two external links left in the lead that shouldn't be there. I intend to remove them. The remaining link (the official website) should go upward to the appropriate position, which is after the first sentence. I believe this is the change required by the Wikipedia guideline at WP:EL. Please respond.

    P.S. As to the question about "From my limited knowledre, there appear to be virtually no significant sources for this topic" -- I will be glad to provide a list, arising from research on the subject. They would serve as sources for the major concepts in the article. B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    That would be very helpful. I don't see any proper sources in the article now.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    "Just a reminder: the official guideline is at WP:EL. It basically excludes all self-published sites with the exception of a link to the official website." No, that is certainly *not* what WP:EL says. The term "self-published" (with or without the hyphen) isn't even used in the policy. Further, "Aesthetic Realism is a Cult" would certainly qualify for inclusion according to the policy's criteria. Yet again, I state that the site has a plethora of important primary sources, such as the New York Post article (not available on the NY Post's website), AR's double-page ad in the New York Times (which is likely the main reason why anyone who knows about AR, does; and like the NY post ad, not available anywhere else), a reprint of their "gay cure" ad which appeared in four major national newspapers (not available anywhere else), the part of the Harper's Magazine review discussing AR, and complete transcripts of an AR consultation, lesson, and secret internal meeting. The site is simply an excellent reference on the subject. MichaelBluejay (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    WP:ELNO
    I don't dispute that the site may be an excellent reference. But this guideline does not allow personal websites except from experts, and one of the criteria for being a recognized expert is having a Wikipedia biography. Further, linking to sites that host copyrighted material without permission is also prohibited - WP:ELNEVER. Personaly, I find sites that host hard-to-find news clippings to be very useful, but that doesn't change the equation.  Will Beback  talk  20:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    You continue to quote policy inaccurately, and I don't like your accusation about hosting copyrighted info without permission. First of all, a personal website is described as a site of a *personal* nature. Aesthetic Realism is a Cult isn't about me, it's about Aesthetic Realism. Second, the "recognized expert" criteria applies to material *written* by the expert. As I keep explaining, what makes the AR is a Cult site relevant is its plethora of original source documents. For some reason you're trying really hard to censor probably the best independent resource on AR around. Third, for the outside works I have on my site, I either have permission, or they constitute fair use. If you're going to assert that I'm breaking the law, exactly which material are you referring to? MichaelBluejay (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    I'm quoting it accurately, though we can disagree about its interpretation. My understanding of "personal web page" is one that belongs to a person, as opposed to an organization. I haven't checked what you've got on your site now, and if it's all with permission then that'd be OK. "Fair use" items would, or course, have to be excerpts rather than complete texts. Anyway, it's apparent that you're not content with the policy interpretations I've given. So I'll post this to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. You should probably follow me so you can add your own view. Then we can see what uninvolved editors think of this.   Will Beback  talk  02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#"Aesthetic Realism is a cult".   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    As promised, the following highly-respected peer-reviewed professional journals are some of the sources which have descriptions of various aspects of Aesthetic Realism and its history in them: British Journal of Aesthetics; Administration & Society; Anthropologist; Journal of the Print World; Music Educators Journal; others. The page references, dates, etc. will be provided when needed. There are other sources, such as newspaper articles, as well. B.K.S.J. (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for finding those. They're needed now. If we have reliable secondary sources then we should aim to base this article on those. Do you have access to the actual texts or just the citations?   Will Beback  talk  20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    I can provide the texts. What is the best way to do this? Shall I type relevant purtions on my talk page? B.K.S.J. (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    Terrific. I suggest placing them at Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

    Ex-gay movement category

    I consider it justified to remove the ex-gay category from this article. The article makes it clear that Aesthetic Realism does not currently promote attempts at converting homosexuals to heterosexuality. The fact that it once did so, I don't consider relevant; categories should reflect the current status of something, not its past history (for instance, no one should be categorised as a Catholic simply because they were once a Catholic, if they later abandoned Catholicism).

    Furthermore, the term ex-gay, properly speaking, has a rather narrow meaning, and I don't think it fits Aesthetic Realism. Although the term "ex-gay" is used in the article to describe Aesthetic Realists who abandoned homosexuality, there's nothing to show that Aesthetic Realists have ever used that term to describe themselves, so it seems extremely misleading. Skoojal (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

    I'd missed your discussion here when I posted below. As for your first assertion, as a matter of history and sound practice once a person or group fits into a category there's no reason to delete them from it. For example, Edward VIII of the United Kingdom is still in Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom even though he is no longer king.
    Regarding you second point, which is addressed below, I don't know from where you are getting yuor definition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    Your argument above is totally mistaken, in my view. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone that at any time was anything should continue to be categorized that way, even if they stop being it? For instance, would you want to categorize someone who used to be a Catholic as a Catholic? The case of EdwardVIII and other monarchs has absolutely nothing in common with this. Special cases where doing what you suggest is appropriate don't justify doing it in general, and certainly not in this case. Skoojal (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    Third Opinion: granting that this is not a topic I know a lot about, I don't see that Aesthetic Realism was ever designed or intended as an Ex-Gay movement, but rather that it was picked up by some group or groups at a later point as a way to convert gays. the ex-gay practice does not seem to be an inherent part of AR, and so it probably shouldn't be included directly (though those groups that used it that way probably should be categorized that way). --Ludwigs2 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not sure about this whole movement thing. If the article isn't in the "ex-gay movement" category then it should be in a comparable article for conversion therapy not part of a movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    I have removed the ex-gay organizations category. I note that you redefined the category itself - presumably so this article would fit into it. I undid that as well. It's better to discuss major changes like this before making them. Skoojal (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Lol, an emotionally-charged rally that gets you teared up and super-excited? Gosh, how many organizations do this? MLM-scam companies, religious groups, sales-based organizations, etc. it's all designed to get you to drink the bitter kool-aid as if it were lemonade. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker it would appear. The difference between us and animals isn't are emotions--they have emotions as well. It's our logic. Try using it. --74.34.209.213 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

    "Making one of" (introduction)

    I replaced the phrase "making one of" with "synthesis or unifying". I recognize that "making one of" is a verbatim quotation from the founder of Aesthetic Realism, but that does not mean the phrase should be used as such: it should either be "quoted" or italicized to indicate that it is a particular group's phrase OR it should be replaced with language that is otherwise more succinct and commonly used. Not knowing too much about the group, I have chosen the latter. If someone more familiar wants to take the first course, I emphasize that the phrase should be in quotes or italics to distinguish it as intentional and not a merely kind of clunky phrase which is unlikely to appear in encyclopedic writing.71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    "Not knowing too much about the group, I have chosen the latter"? In all politeness, it's not up to you to define beauty as Aesthetic Realism teaches it. I am fine with a direct quote and will make that change. LoreMariano (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    I appreciate the change to a quotation. For the record, or at least my understanding, what is the difference between a union or synthesis and a "making one of"?71.224.206.164 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

    Allegations of cult behavior

    I expanded this section and added sourced quotes and links to commentary from prominent ex-members, reputable psychologists, and cult-experts. If there is a debate about this information, please discuss it here or on my talk page. I think the even-handed inclusion of this information is absolutely critical so that wikipedia does not become a soapbox for organization that may be harmful to individuals. Am I suggesting Aesthetic Realism is a cult? No, I'm just adding relevant information. But I do believe that the sensitivity of these claims cannot keep them out of a thorough discussion, affording them the same space and detail which the article gives to the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism. Nor do I find this giving undue weight to criticism, as it reflects mainstream media coverage of the group. Finally, if there are liability or slander issues (BLP stuff), please make an attempt to conform to those issues without removing substance from the article. Thanks71.224.206.164 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

    I've reverted one of your edits. Please don't use a self-published website as a source. The standards for sources for use in Wikipedia are in WP:V and WP:RS.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
    If you wish to have a discussion, by all means let us do so. Are you aware that you have completely ignored mainstream scholarly publications, conferences, museums, authorities in their fields, etc., etc.? P.S. I wouldn't dignify cheap, tabloid journalism by calling it "mainstream media." B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    BKSJ, I was not previously aware of the reception AR received in scholarly publications, though the article did inform me that no less a person than William Carlos Williams found truth in the philosophy. The issue we're dealing with, however, has two prongs and they are not necessarily related. The first issue is the philosophy itself--the ideas, their influence, and their reception. The second issue is the way that the organization founded on that philosophy actually operates and the subjective experiences of its members. My focus in editing this article is partly to make sure the philosophy is represented in a manner appropriate to an encyclopedia, with accuracy but appropriate detachment (the first prong). But mainly, my focus is on the second issue: how can this article reflect the fact that mainstream newspaper articles, as well as organizations which study new religious movements(nrm)/cults have identified Aesthetic Realism as a controversial group with which individuals have had experiences that they report as negative and cult-like? You can call the New York post a "tabloid" but a)it is not considered so by Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources; and b)the articles include the quoted opinions of ex-members, psychologists, and nrm/cult researchers which would stand on their merits regardless of the forum in which they appeared. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Three-Day Edit Blast without Consensus or Discussion

    IP 71.224.206.164 cannot undo in 3 days what it took a number of editors 4+ months (120+ days) to agree on. Please do not make changes without discussion and verified consensus. If no consensus can be reached, this article will be stubbed and locked down, which, frankly, at this point, is preferable. LoreMariano (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

    I didn't look closely at the changes but I agree that discussion would be the best course of action. However it's inappropriate to remove {citation needed} tags without providing a citation. Could you restore those please?   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    Also, note that the IP did attempt to explain himself above. I suggest engaging in that discussion.   Will Beback  talk  04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed. Absenting oneself from discussion, returning, reverting without engaging in further discussion, and then making threats on the talk page - threats which I suspect there would be a great deal of difficulty bringing to fruition - is not an appropriate or collegial action for an editor, especially one for whom there seems to be a potential problem of conflict of interest. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    Outerlimits, since you have an account please log in when making significant edits. Edits by unregistered, "drive by" editor are given less weight and more frequently reverted than those of established editors. It's also a bit rude to other editors, leaving us wondering what's going on.
    Also, please note this edit I made to a citation: [2] Adding a cite that just says http://michaelbluejay.com/x/nypost.html#article makes it appear that you are citing a one-person website. Adding EDELMAN, SUSAN; ALVAREZ, MARIA (February 1, 1998). "'I threw out 15 years of my life,' says ex-follower". New York Post shows that you are citing a reliable source. It's not necessary to use that exact template (some folks hate them), but you should give as much bibliographic information as you can.   Will Beback  talk  10:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I have edited this article when not logged in. I have not. The recent edits were made by someone other than me. I am well acquainted with concepts basic to appropriate referencing. It is appropriate to assess edits on the basis of whether they improve an article rather than their origin, or their perceived origin: it is at least an aspiration on Wikipedia not to discount edits by IPs simply on that basis. - Outerlimits (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    Apology for the mistake. I mis-read your comments as taking credit for the edits.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    I will engage in discussion but I will not stand by and let IP 71 write about Aesthetic Realism as if it were a cult. LoreMariano (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    Certainly the unvetted, undiscussed, and highly innacurate (POV) statements made by one individual ought not to stand alone. Is that person ready to discuss, point for point? B.K.S.J. (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    BKSJ, I might have underestimated the amount of discussion about this article that happened in these pages, but it was apparent to me that the article took a consistent "insider" tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I edited to remove that. I am aware that I quoted sources whose veracity or reliability you dispute, but I don't believe that I made statements which were inaccurate or took a particular POV; if you can point me to them, it might be helpful. Lastly, I have taken on re-editing the article paragraph by paragraph--point by point--so that a better outcome can be reached. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Adding five categories to which the article Aesthetic Realism belongs

    Copied from user talk:Will Beback

    Right now there are only two categories at the bottom of this article, and I believe this gives an incorrect impression. These categories are: "Aesthetic Realism | Changing sexuality"

    Can we also have the following: Philosophy, American Philosophy, Aesthetics, The arts, and Education?

    All these categories are relevant. Aesthetic Realism belongs to them. They are needed for people to search for this philosophy in the categories to which it actually belongs.

    In fact, the matter of "Changing sexuality" is really long past, and should probably not even be there.

    Thank you for considering these matters. B.K.S.J. (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)B.K.S.J. (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

    I've copied this here because it concerns the article so a discussion is best kept here. The applicable guideline for this is Wikipedia:Categorization. Category:Aesthetic Realism is currently a subcategory of category:Personal development. The lead of the article says "Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy..." so it's logical to add a philosophy category. Whenever we add a category we should use the most specific one possible. There are dozens of subcategories of Category:Philosophy, including Category:Aesthetics, which in turn has dozens of subcategories of its own. I don't see one for "American philosophy", but maybe I missed it. As for "The arts" or "Education", there is category: Art education - would that apply? Regarding category:Changing sexuality, even though that phase of the organization is in the past it is still a part of the topic. There was an extensive discussion about it last year (see earlier threads on this page).   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

    I think it fall under the "ethics" sub-category too. Nathan43 (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Are there reliable secondary that characterize AR as being significantly concerned with ethics? If so then it should be categorized that way. However we shouldn't make that determination on our own or based only on primary sources. Without sources we shouldn't say anything.   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Edits (User 71)

    I rephrased a few parts of the first paragraph. I am attempting to represent the views of AR fairly, but also in language that would be familiar and common to people not directly connected to Aesthetic Realism. This might involve a touch of translation, since many philosophies use language in a way which uses particular terms or phrasings that may be uncommon outside of the philsophical discourse. I'm thinking of "in outline", "instances" in the first paragraph; there are others throughout the article that I think should be re-phrased.71.224.206.164 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

    I think as long as terms are clear and have been defined properly, the original language should be used as much as possible. Pretty often altering original terminology will also alter the meaning, particularly when the author has chosen his or her vocabulary carefully, as Eli Siegel most definitely did. None of us should assume we are the best judge of what language really is "familiar and common." And second, we need to make sure we have sufficient knowledge of the concepts to reword them accurately without changing their meaning to something else. Each instance needs to be taken for itself. Let's not rush. B.K.S.J. (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    If I seem hasty, it's not out of disrespect; i just like editing, and am happy to consider revisions/reversions/changes/discussions, etc.... I agree that original wording is absolutely essential for art, poetry, prophecy, philosophy, and literature. But, in an encyclopedia, original phrasings must always be highlighted as unique to a particular context, quoted if used verbatim, and defined for a lay readership who will not be familiar with their specific connotations, meanings, and emphases. Otherwise, commonly used, specific, neutral, and precise language should be the standard. As for what's common, it's a you-know-it-when-you-see-it thing. I can tell when someone who's studied AR has written a sentence, just like you can tell if they haven't. I think our task is to incorporate that neutral tone, on the one hand, with the detailed and specific knowledge, on the other. Lastly, I think it bears mention, that while this page should represent the philosophy of AR fairly, it cannot be expected to capture the depth of meaning or nuance which some of its students have discovered through the original texts. It's simply not an encyclopedia's role to convey that, and summary is inevitably going to lack the beauty, nuance, and impact of the real deal. So, if an edit seems to diminish the power of Eli Siegel's words, that may be the practical nature of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a gallery. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    I made some edits too, also for the sake of clarity and accuracy. I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia so please let me know if I do something that's against protocol. I just did a "silent edit" and I took out a link to a footnote by mistake. There have been a lot of edits on this page in the past few days. Nathan43 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Unnecessary phrases

    LoreMariano,

    1) I hope the edit track i've been on seems agreeable.

    2) Your correction/reversion of a phrase you called unnecessary seems like a representative conflict that we can find some consensus on. I think any claim, particularly in an article about a particular set of ideas (which are someone/some group's philosophical assertions) needs to be attributed to that individual/group, lest we present it as fact. The edit I'm referring to is: "Opposites--such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace--may fight in a person's life, yet they work together in a successful instance of art." This assertion may seem obvious, even stunningly so, for you, but it is in fact a proposition--a statement which puts forth a particular theory about what makes a piece of art successful and what role opposites play in that. So, I added, "In this philosophy..." (a clunky phrase, but I think you see the attempted direction... perhaps "according to the philosophy...?). I might be nit-picking, but I don't think that all theories of aesthetics posit the same role or emphasis on opposites in explaining the nature of beauty and successful art. Is there a phrasing which will both represent the idea fairly and make it clear that it is a statement particular to the philosophy, rather than a general truism. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    Whether a person approves or disapproves of the choice of words an IT specialist uses to explain the components of a computer is irrelevant: as long as the words are clearly defined and properly used, it isn't an editor's role to impose their own linguistic preferences and say that they communicate more clearly until it has been shown that they do.
    An article about a philosophy should state clearly what that philosophy is, what it says, and if possible its place in world culture, including historically. Any focus on personalities is superfluous. A case in point is the Encyclopedia Britannica article on philosophic pragmatism (vide 14th Edition, Vol. 18) in which the main authors of this viewpoint are cited (Pierce, Bradley, Dewy, James, and others) but the purpose is to describe the philosophy. Whether some pragmatists attacked other pragmatists on or off the campus is irrelevant to what pragmatism is. The same for Aesthetic Realism. If we want to be professional-quality encylopedists, let us not intensify or dignify the mud-slinging. A "balanced" view of pragmatism was to stick to what it said. That's the real subject of an article on a philosophy.
    Since Aesthetic Realism is about all the arts, it would be incorrect to use a phrase like "work of art" which sounds like it is only about a painting. A "piece of art" also conveys the idea of a work of visual art. What word would you use to describe how a theory of aesthetics is true about the beauty of (a) a painting, (b) a play or drama, (c) a novel, (d) a symphony. Each of these is an "instance" of art, once art is seen as including all aspects of artistic expression. I looked up the word "instance" in Webster's and it is "an individual illustrative of a category." So the use of the word is proper, even if it doesn't convey its meaning to everyone right away. Perhaps the meaning should be explained more in the article. Unless you have a better word that doesn't change the meaning, the idea, I would keep it as it is and add explanation. I expect that the writer wanted to keep things compact so that the writing didn't run on too long. Nobody should be "married" to any particular phraseology, but at the same time we should try to use the most accurate language possible. If we need to add a glossary to define terms, that would be fine. "What say you?" B.K.S.J. (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    BKSJ, I agree that the IT specialist can use whatever words he wants, but it is preferable in an encyclopedia that those words be accessible to laymen, if possible. My linguistic preferences are in no way sacrosanct, especially not in a nuanced area of philosophy, but I am aware of when a particular tone or set of word choices seems different than what I usually encounter--and for the purposes of editing I want to know if there's a new context that may need elucidating or whether other language would be more accessible. Also, I do think it's possible that language which might otherwise communicate better will not simply because it is unfamiliar to the reader; but that's a continual challenge in framing ideas.
    I disagree that we can't "consider personalities" or other topics which are external to the literal theory. An encyclopedia can do both, using care to separate: ideas, from the their originators, from their adherents, from their reception, and from the criticism that any of those facets received. It might seem "unprofessional" to stray from the core content, but ideas are not created or propagated in a vacuum, and we don't do them harm or disrespect by appropriately writing their biography in full. Practically, if there's criticism, we represent and reference it; we don't "mud-sling" it.
    I agree that "instance" fits here, though "work of art" is used to describe just about every kind of creative product, as well. For my tastes, instance seems to focus on the phenomena of art distinct from its producer (which may be fitting for aesthetics)... but that's probably just a matter of personal connotation. Incidentally, I did some googling and "instance of art" beats "work of art" 10 million over 7 million, with the first hits for "instance" coming from articles specifically about aesthetics. Who knew? It reminds me somewhat of an article about computing I edited a while ago, where they kept using this term "hardness" with an inline comment not to replace it with "difficulty", since it was an intentional term used in the industry. Seeing that there was persistent confusion, I just added the phrase: "hardness, a specific term used in the computing industry to measure difficulty", and it seemed cleared up to me. I don't think we need that here, but it's a good tool to bridge the gap if necessary.
    To recap: I'd still like to clarify the link between opposites and contempt; I still think we could use minimal context or attribution for, "Opposites--such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace--may fight in a person's life, yet they work together in a successful instance of art"; I still find a contradiction between stating that AR has received both high praise and not as much praise as it deserves; and, "instance" seems like a good choice. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    I haven't read all of this thread, and I don't have any opinion on its substance. But I saw Google hits being offered as evdince, which caught my eye. Raw Google hits are pretty much useless. A more refined number is obtained by going to the end of the search. While they may report 6 or 10 million hits, the vast majority of those are meaningless. The "true" Google hit value for "instance of art" is about 389,[3] and the value for "work of art" is about 610.[4] Another detail I notice is that Aesthetic Realism websites appear on the first page of results for "instance of art", so even if it receives fewer hits overall it may be the more logical term to use in this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    Reliable Secondary Sources about Aesthetic Realism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources -- Here is a page containing reliable secondary sources about the philosophy Aesthetic Realism. This is a selection. Some are peer-reviewed articles in professional journals. Some are articles/reviews in mainstream periodicals. I will provide more. They provide references for the descriptions of Aesthetic Realism in the article, including the assertion that well known authorities for decades have recognized the preeminence of Eli Siegel's thought and poetry in the history of culture. B.K.S.J. (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks for compiling those. It would also help if you could identify those written by members of the movement. They are still usable as sources, but it's helpful to see which sources are sympathetic versus critical or neutral.   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Questions (relating to content in the introduction)

    A few things popped up as I was editing the first 3 paragraphs (hopefully not too controversially).

    1) What is the connection between opposites and contempt (is not having contempt accepting the negative side of the duality)? The link between the two ideas is not clear in the introduction (though maybe that's ok if it's explained in the body).

    2) If aesthetic realism received glowing praise and "high opinion" from numerous articles and scholars, how was it also dismissed like keat's poetry, or einstein's theory of relativity: aren't those two reactions contradictory?

    3) What is an "instance" of art? Is it different from a "work" or "piece" of art? Is that phrasing common in AR or elsewhere and I am just resisting the general ability of "instance" to encompass 'one' of just about anything? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

    This page exists solely to discuss improvements to the article. See WP:TPG. I don't know if there's a forum or blog devoted to this topic, but this isn't the place to discuss it. The answers to these questions would be interesting, I'm sure, but this isn't the place for that discussion.   Will Beback  talk  10:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    Will, the idea that talk pages are for relevant substance is important, but there's no way to write an article without both understanding the subject and the ability to discuss background and context. So I think you're wrong to think these questions are just "philosophizing", whereas they directly relate to respectively 1) the logical structure and progression of ideas, 2) thematic consistency in the presentation of evidence, and 3) word choice as it pertains to a particular ideology or subculture. I think this is the place for the discussion, and I'd encourage we do more of it. Maybe some of the contentiousness in the debate could be resolved through a better understanding of ideas; at the least, it will inform my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.206.164 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    Be that as it may, we should simply be summarizing reliable secondary sources for this topic. So the first step should be determining what sources are available. If these issues are not in secondary sources then we should simply delete them.   Will Beback  talk  18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    Will, I think this is an issue about interpreting as well as communicating secondary sources. So, my questions aren't directed towards any individual's particular opinion, but their opinion given familiarity with reliable sources. My language may sound chatty and too 'personally interested', but I don't think every issue is that easily tied to a particular source. That doesn't mean we can't find evidence for it, though. So I'll restate the questions:
    1) Can we clarify the theoretical link in AR between opposites and contempt, since it stands as somewhat of a non-sequitur in the current introduction?
    2) Is there a contradiction between stating that AR has received both high praise and not as much praise as it deserves? If so, can we resolve the contradiction or, if not, re-frame it so that it reflects a mere difference of opinion among parties.
    3) Is the phrase "instance of art" appropriate for this article, or should the more typical "work" or "piece" of art be used. If this language is particular to AR, then some context could be provided. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    To IP 71: I haven't had time today but I want to address your questions. They are big questions and I don't want to give "fast" answers. I will address them this weekend when I have more time and I'll post something on your talk page by Sunday evening. I'll also get to your question below regarding opposites in art and life. Let's not get into whether or not the discussion should take place here. I think Will is simply trying to facilitate (on this page) discussion that will lead to consensus and he's right about that. LoreMariano (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    Q&A posted HERE. LoreMariano (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    Categories (For discussion, not provocation)

    I noticed that some categories, including, most inclusively, Education, were added to the article. I'd like to discuss the inclusion of other categories and "See Also" Links. Some are uncontroversial, some are not. The most controversial ones rehash territory which we have not resolved, and I don't presume to simply include them without addressing the larger issues (or let them hang as a kind of guilt-by-category association). Nevertheless, the list is broadly construed to allow for an interested reader to approach a wide range of material, background information, and opposing opinions, and make up his or her own opinion.

    Categories:

    • Sociology of religion
    • Philosophy of religion
    • Religious conversion
    • Religion and society
    • Criticism of religion
    • Opposition to religion
    • Disengagement from religion
    • New religious movement
    • Cult
    • Anti-cult organizations and individuals
    • Researchers of cults and new religious movements
    • Exit counselors
    • Anti-cult terms and concepts

    See Also:

    71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    I am greatly diappointed in the angle from which you are approaching this. Aesthetic Realism is not religion at all. None of these categories have any validity when applied to it. Religion is based on faith, is it not? Aesthetic Realism is social science, and is based on ascertainable (that is, intersubjective) fact. I will suggest some other specific categories soon, and perhaps you would like to comment on them. B.K.S.J. (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    BKSJ, your mention of intersubjectivity is itself a claim, which, again, assumes your conclusion that what AR says is true. I don't dispute that it's true for you, but you can't a priori assume that everyone could see the world the way you do, or would want to, or that it would be correct to. Let me change that... you can assume those things, but those assumptions simply cannot affect what claims or sources make it into this article. Because Wikipedia is not about your perception, no matter how intersubjective you claim it to be--even if you're right.
    Also, when you claim AR is a social science, do you mean that there are experimentally valid, empirical studies which demonstrate statistical significance about anything AR says? Or do you just mean that it's true because Eli Siegel said so. Or do you mean that it's true, because it just is true and it can't be denied. Because none of them meet the threshold of science as the broad scientific community sees it. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization. It says: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." And: "An article should be placed in all the existing categories to which it logically belongs, subject to the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." So if there is verifiable information to support a category, and if that is a defining characteristic, then it should go in that category. Otherwise, not.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    On the Legitimacy or Illegitimacy of Some Sources

    As we editors work together to see which sentences in the article on Aesthetic Realism should stay, which should change, and which should be added, we need to be aware more keenly than ever which sentences are true and which are not. This is a simple criterion that every sincere encyclopedist can agree with.

    Wikipedia differentiates between reliable secondary sources and ones that are not reliable. This implies that some sources may not be true. After all, what else can make a source unreliable? However, I don’t wish to belabor the obvious.

    Point One.

    In paragraph three of this article, there now is this phrase: “praise in several articles, professional journals.” It used to be “praise in articles, professional journals.“ Not to nitpick, “several” is the wrong word. It doesn’t convey the truth. “Several” means only a few: Webster’s says it means “more than one and less than many.” If we check the facts, asking "How many articles are there, really?" we find on the following four pages a great deal of writing (including hundreds, perhaps, of articles) about the Aesthetic Realism philosophy, written by authors who describe it as having a preeminent value for America and the world.

    (1) Aesthetic Realism in the Press < http://www.aestheticrealism.net/index-press.html > (2) Poets, literary critics, scholars, and others comment on the importance of Eli Siegel's work in their own fields of expertise. This includes reviews in the NY Times and elsewhere. < http://www.counteringthelies.com/reviews-and-more.html > (3) Articles on about the Aesthetic Realism Teaching Method. < http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Education_link.htm > (4) Articles in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known < http://www.aestheticrealism.net/tro/sitemap.html > (5) Articles in a Wikipedia page of sources on Aesthetic Realism < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources >

    There is surely some duplication among these, but the number is sufficient to show that the phrase “some articles” needs to be altered. Therefore I am removing the word “some.”

    Point Two.

    The two newpaper articles in which Aesthetic Realism is attacked – one attack in the New York Post and the other in the Baltimore Jewish Times -- are NOT reliable sources. And we should act accordingly as editors.

    FIRST: As everyone knows, the New York Post is hostile to anything that represents economic or racial justice and we can rely in the Post to lie about them and make them look bad. Therefore we should not be surprised at what it wrote about Aesthetic Realism—in an article exhumed by Michael Bluejay from the last century and reprinted on his web pages. As a “reliable” source, the Post does not qualify.

    Devorah Tarrow tells: “This tabloid is known also for attacking virulently whatever doesn't go along with its right-wing agenda, including unions and other progressive organizations and causes. (Again, what do the facts matter?) See < http://www.counteringthelies.com/Post-article-comment.html >

    SECOND: The Baltimore Jewish Times article, also exhumed by Michael Bluejay, is a carefully constructed hatchet job that is riddled with cleverly concealed falsehoods and innuendoes. It is clear that the writer is impelled by malice. For more details see “From the Aesthetic Realism Foundation's Response to the Baltimore Jewish Times article, Aug. 27, 2003” – at < http://www.counteringthelies.com/appendix.htm >

    The language and “factoids” used in both Post and Times articles are so biased, so POV, they would not qualilfy for an article in Wikipedia. It would be too ironic for them to be good enough to be designated “reliable sources”!

    THIRD. We should not suppose that the lies about Aesthetic Realism online have no effect. For example, one lie on the Bluejay web pages got all the way to Amsterdam to the STORMFRONT.org website, a site run by Nazis, which links to Michaelbluejay.com. Perhaps later I’ll ask someone to translate the hate speech in Dutch that Mr. Bluejay unfortunately has encouraged with his distorted way of commenting on Aesthetic Realism. The Stormfront posting I refer to begins: ”De jood Eli Siegel, stichter van aestetic realism…” which means, “The Jew Eli Siegel, founder of Aesthetic Realism…” And here is the quote from Bluejay (I hasten to add, Bluejay is lying):

    “Religiously the group is non-denominational but a large number of its members and leaders are Jewish, perhaps the majority of them, with names like Siegel, Koppelman, Blaustein, Shapiro, Fishman, Rosen, Weiner, Weiss, Reiss Kimmelman, Kestenbaum, Bernstein, and my birth surname, Freedman. The Jewish involvement in the group is so strong that JewishTimes did a story on the controversy surrounding AR. The group is also officially nonpartisan but their politics are far left, being highly critical of greed and profit in capitalist economics.”

    < I cut and pasted this quotation from the stormfront URL: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1994796 >

    Stormfront.org concludes that the information from Mr. Bluejay “is an important indication that Jews do have a hidden agenda and focus on the breaking of any opposition and criticism in order to achieve their goal.” Tell me, is this dangerous or what?

    IN CONCLUSION:

    To put it politely, both the articles -- Post and Times – are driven by deliberate malice against living individuals. Wikipedia has in the last year or so shown increased sensitivity toward malicious lies in the Wikipedia biographies of living individuals and wants to prevent them. This article is not a biography. But it still contains malicious lies and links to them. The false information in this article also should be eliminated for the same reason as it is eliminated in biographies: it damages reputations and is, plainly, cruel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.K.S.J. (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

    The fact that someone is quoted in Stormfront isn't relevant. The Post and Times publications are reliable sources. If there's a feeling that they are biased or promoting a POV then we can attribute the views to them and let readers make up their own minds. I'd like to remind users that Wikipedia is not a battleground.   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    I am amazed to see the Post described as a reliable source. I can only think that you haven't actually seen a copy. Wikipedia's own article on the New York Post quotes this statement by the Columbia Journalism Review: "The New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil." In the same Wikipedia article are listed numerous examples of the Post's racism, distortion, and malevolence. Nathan43 (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    The Post has been discussed at WP:RSN a couple of times, most recently in December. Despite its problems, it is considered a reliable source. Given the paucity of independent sources on this topic, we're not in a position to discard any lightly.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    BKSJ, I am serious. I'll go point by point:
    You wrote: "We need to be aware more keenly than ever which sentences are true and which are not. This is a simple criterion that every sincere encyclopedist can agree with." This is completely incorrect. Encyclopedia writers are not the arbiters of truth, they are the presenters of the range of theories accepted within a discourse. It is abundantly clear in Wikipedia policies that our personal opinions are not valid determinants for inclusion in an article.
    You Wrote: "Wikipedia differentiates between reliable secondary sources and ones that are not reliable. This implies that some sources may not be true. After all, what else can make a source unreliable? However, I don’t wish to belabor the obvious." Truth is not the determinant of reliability. That is a circular fallacy which allows you to determine which sources are "reliable", meaning, consistent with your view of the truth. That is not how Wikipedia works.
    I'm fine with removing several (to me it means 'a lot'); my intent wasn't to diminish coverage of AR. For the record, I want to emphasize the full reception AR received, both the praise, and the criticism. Both, fully.
    You wrote: "As everyone knows, the New York Post is hostile to anything that represents economic or racial justice and we can rely in the Post to lie about them and make them look bad. Therefore we should not be surprised at what it wrote about Aesthetic Realism—in an article exhumed by Michael Bluejay from the last century and reprinted on his web pages. As a “reliable” source, the Post does not qualify." Phrases like 'as everyone knows' are not valid here. I don't know that. At the least, you can't assume I do. That's the fallacy of assuming your conclusions and it has no place in rational discourse within Wikipedia. I agree that the NY Post doesn't always write about topics I personally like or in a tone that I like. It doesn't matter. We use the Post as a source (see Will's post above) and let readers decide if it has a bias by reading the article themselves. Besides, the quotes in the article itself are not "biased" by the place of their publication. Their voices would be just as reliable if they were quoted in the Financial Times or the National Enquirer, so long as they didn't deny accurate dictation. Also, that article included... rebuttals by the spokesperson for AR. To include both sides of a story is an absolute platform of journalistic credibility. I intend to do the same on Wikipedia. Incidentally, it doesn't matter who or how long ago an article was "exhumed". It has no bearing on reliability.
    What Devorah Tarrow says about the New York Post on Counteringthelies.com has no bearing on the reliability of the NY Post. We quote the article verbatim, and at the absolute most, present Tarrow's criticism of the Post as well. But we do not exclude the claims from the article.
    You wrote: "carefully constructed hatchet job that is riddled with cleverly concealed falsehoods and innuendos. It is clear that the writer is impelled by malice." This is your opinion. It has no place in an article on Wikipedia. The source is reliable by WIKI standards and nothing you say about the arguments within the article can change that.
    You wrote: "The language and “factoids” used in both Post and Times articles are so biased, so POV, they would not qualify for an article in Wikipedia. It would be too ironic for them to be good enough to be designated “reliable sources”!" Again, this determination of irony reflects your personal opinion. It has no place in Wikipedia.
    About Stormfront, you're right, the ideas on Wikipedia do carry far. That is why we must present them objectively and FULLY. After that, what a neo-nazi newsfront does with them is none of our business. Stormfront may be dangerous. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia. People can use it to support whatever pet theory they want. Lastly, no one is making biased claims about ethnicity within this article, so the attempt to refute them is not relevant.
    You wrote: "[the articles] are driven by deliberate malice against living individuals. Wikipedia has in the last year or so shown increased sensitivity toward malicious lies in the Wikipedia biographies of living individuals and wants to prevent them." Again, this is your opinion and has no place here. Per WIKI:BLP, biographies of living persons must be reliably sourced, but accusations of libel are dependent on the truth of the claim. Since that claim is the very topic of our discussion, again, you cannot assume your conclusions. WIKI:BLP does not say you can't write stuff about people that makes others think less of them. It says you can't write unreliably sourced stuff about people that makes others think less of them. Since these sources are valid by Wikipedia standards, the claims do not violate BLP policy. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    Rewriting the Intro

    The lead we have now, I'm afraid, is unclear and a little muddy. The principles of Aesthetic Realism don't come forth very clearly. And also, the history of the persons who have attacked it is not accurate enough. This lead seems to have gradually evolved by small increments from a much clearer lead that was written earlier, but the changes were made largely without discussing the particulars. I think too that the placing of opponents to students of Aesthetic Realism, who have even said they did not disagree with the philosophy, is not accurate enough. The one thing they attacked is social--not philosophic at all--making the ridiculous proposition that an authentic school and authentic students were deluded cultists. This means these so-called critics are trying to negotiate a fundamental contradiction in what they are saying. (1) Nothing is wrong with the philosophy (meaning it is true) and (2) the people who think it's true are deluded.  !!!!????!!!!

    Consequently, I'm taking the lead in revising the first paragraphs so that they accurately reflect reality, are TRUE sentences. I am using a few more references, so that the sourcing of ALL my writing is clear.

    I do hope that whatever debate follows is civil. I am ready to answer any legitimate questions.

    B.K.S.J. (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    Given the history of this article, I think re-writing the long intro without prior discussion is a bad idea. I suyggest you revert yourself and post it here instead.   Will Beback  talk  05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    This material is so far from neutral that I'm inclined to just delete the whole intro:
    • The single criticism has been social: a number of individuals, particularly since 1990, have alleged that students of Aesthetic Realism are not educators and students but they are really followers of a cult. These individuals have initiated two newspaper articles to that effect [13] But the scientific and aesthetic ideas of Aesthetic Realism are too firmly established for any claims of fraudulence or self-deception to hold up. Indeed, say proponents of Aesthetic Realism, these so-called “critics” are lying for purposes of their own, and the articles they initiated are nothing but deliberate disinformation. About 70 artists, musicians, social scientists, business people, medical specialists, and so on, have posted detailed refutations of these lies on the website Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies. [14]
    That is unacceptable.   Will Beback  talk  05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


    There it is, I have reverted the lead back to what it was. What I am proposing is the following lead, because there has been a drift to increasing lack of clarity, and too much writing without pausing to consult one another. That is why I made the attempt. I think the fact that the lead has come from so many hands, piecemeal, has made it a jumble. Sometimes if a piece comes from one person, all in one thrust, it gets a coherence it lacked. Then the others can see if it is true and represents their views. The first paragraphs have a different tone and I think they are more neutral and precise than the previous version. The last paragraph is clearly from an angle that some people won't like. Why don't we look at it and ask, what really is true here? We should give our sources, and be critical of them. The New York Post and the Baltimore Jewish Times are terribly biased. Any reader would see that. And they made up things, grossly vicious things. If the facts mean nothing to them, that doesn't mean they should mean nothing to us.

    HERE IS THE PROPOSED LEAD.

    (Note: Unfortunately, the last paragraph, although true, will need alteration. I hope we can find some common ground.)

    Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. [9] Its primary teachings are, (1) The deepest desire of everyone is to like the world. (2) The greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world; – contempt is defined as the lessening of things outside oneself (people included) in order to be falsely important oneself. There is a debate, he showed, a conflict, in everyone between contempt and respect: wanting to like the world and wanting to lessen it. But (3) we can learn from art how to resolve conflict in the self—because, Mr. Siegel stated, “All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves.” [10] Contempt and respect are tremendous opposites in everyone. In art – in a good poem, a good play, a true novel—the artist is fair to the world in a big way as he or she asserts individuality. This is a making one of world and self and it is the only successful opposition to contempt. When we have contempt for the world—are unjustly bored, or conceited, or angry--we also have contempt for ourselves: and this is why contempt is the underlying cause of unhappiness. It is also the cause of injustice: our contempt for people and things makes us cruel; taken far enough contempt is the cause of racism; and it is the cause of the wars that have hurt humanity for centuries. [11]
    Aesthetic Realism differs from other ways of seeing the self or society because of the central place it gives to a person's attitude to the world as a whole. Over the decades since its founding, scholars, critics, and professionals have described Eli Siegel and the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism as providing a new approach to understanding every field of study, whether in understanding music, [12] photography, [13] poetry, [14] anthropology, [15] educational method, [16] or the visual arts, [17] or in effectively opposing racism, [18] including in oneself. Articles to this effect have been published for decades in professional journals and presented in professional conferences in both the U.S. and abroad—which continues today. [19] From1971 to 1990 the philosophy was studied by gays and lesbians who wished to become heterosexual. In 1990 this subject was discontinued and it is no longer being taught because, states the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, it is not central to Aesthetic Realism and is surrounded by controversy and anger.
    The truth of the principles of Aesthetic Realism has held up through multitudinous testing for 60 years. Their scientific value and personal value to the lives of individuals has been affirmed in hundreds of first hand accounts in seminars and essays. [20] The single criticism has been social: a number of individuals, particularly since 1990, have alleged that students of Aesthetic Realism are not educators and students but they are really followers of a cult. These individuals have initiated two newspaper articles to that effect [21] But the scientific and aesthetic ideas of Aesthetic Realism are too firmly established for any claims of fraudulence or self-deception to hold up. Indeed, say proponents of Aesthetic Realism, these so-called “critics” are lying for purposes of their own, and the articles they initiated are nothing but deliberate disinformation. About 70 artists, musicians, social scientists, business people, medical specialists, and so on, have posted detailed refutations of these lies on the website Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies. [22]

    While the last paragraph is a swing away from the previous one, I maintain that the previous last paragraph was unacceptably POV itself. Glad to show all concerned exactly what I mean. B.K.S.J. (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    That is so far from the neutral point of view that it's unfixable. I have stubbed the intro entirely. Introductions should simply be a summary of the article. Fix the article first and then write a short summary of the main points. But please start by reading WP:NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

    Article Rewrite

    I don't think there is one secondary source comprehensive enough to use exclusively. As was suggested by Will Beback some days ago, let's fix the article first and then write the lead.

    I'd like to ask about citing articles that are truncated in academic journals -- for example, this article in the British Journal of Aesthetics, published by Oxford University Press, which shows the opening paragraphs but requires a subscription to view the full text. [23]

    Taking the article section-by-section, the first heading is "Aesthetic Realism: the Philosophy." The principles of Aesthetic Realism can be succinctly put. As a source, I suggest the overview by Congressman Eliajah Cummings memorialized in the Congressional Record. [24] This source can also be referenced later under the heading on racism. LoreMariano (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

    We can use more than one source: the more the better. Is a congressman the best independent source for this topic? I'm not even sure that would count as a reliable secondary source. As for the Oxford source, that sounds good. I'll try to find a copy.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    I looked at the BJA. Isn't Edward Green a member of the ARF? If so, it doesn't really count as an independent source.   Will Beback  talk  06:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    Edward Green has a Ph.D. from NYU and yes, he is a teacher on the faculty of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation.[5]. You said (above): "They are still usable as sources, but it's helpful to see which sources are sympathetic versus critical or neutral. Will Beback talk 02:59, 25 January 2010."
    Will, please stop referring to people who study Aesthetic Realism as members. There are no members. It gives the wrong impression. It's not a club, it's an educational foundation.
    Should I attempt to rewrite the first section with the Eliajah Cummings reference? LoreMariano (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    No, the Cummings source is not sufficient. Please find a reliable, independent, secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    To clarify, the Cummings source is adequate to say that Rep. Cummings entered into the Congressional record praise for Siegel which mentioned AR. But it is a primary source so we should use it as little as possible. His submission also includes material written by others. I mean no disrespect on Siegel or the US Congress when I say that large quantities of male cattle output gets added to the Congressional Record every session. It's little more than the group blog of Congress. No disrespect, but it is not a reliable source for anything except the fact that the words were spoken or otherwise entered into the record. (In this case, an "Extensions of Remarks".)
    If we can't find more secondary sources that are acceptable then the question shifts to notability. We may have only enough good sources to support a few hundred to a thousand words of text before we start over-using primary sources. Should this article just be merged to the Siegel biography?
    Regarding "members", it's a catchall phrase that includes AR consultants, ARF faculty, students, old Society for AR members, etc. A view that AR is simply a philosophy and not also a movement or organization with adherents or members is inconsistent with outside sources. If there's a less bothersome phrase that covers the same group of people then I'd be happy to use that instead.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    well... primary sources should be fine for a description of the basic principles of AR so long as it's done with an eye towards balance. no sense killing ourselves trying to fine secondary sources that would probably misrepresent the material anyway. critical assessments probably need nice neutral secondary sources, however. --Ludwigs2 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    Let's see what we find among the best secondary and primary sources. I have no objection to using primary sources for precise delineation of the dogma. And given the availability of secondary sources, notability probably isn't a serious concern either, though it's still marginal.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    Let me have another week to see what independent, secondary sources I can find and then let's review options again. If the articles were combined, would the one-sentence description remain on the Aesthetic Realism page with a link to the Eli Siegel, combined-article page?LoreMariano (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    When an article is merged, a "redirect" is left in place that automatically sends readers to the merged article.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    But let's not worry about that yet. Let's focus on finding sources and see what we can make of them.   Will Beback  talk  13:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

    Disambiguation text proposal

    This article refers to Eli Siegel's philosophy called "Aesthetic Realism". See aesthetics for the general subject; realism in the arts, realism in theater, or realism in visual arts for specific applications of realism; and the realism disambiguation page for other uses of the term.

    ...thoughts, questions, recommendations? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

    p.s. Mr. Bluejay, would you join us in the content but keep the personal stuff for another venue...? No one is getting away with anything here; unless it's sourced and in line with wiki standards.

    Your disambiguation is perfect. And my criticism of how the AR people operate isn't "personal", it directly applies to their tactics here, which started here five years ago. I've seen them attempt the same kind of censorship over and over again, and I'm just calling a spade a spade. Recently they've been co-opting WP terms to give their censorship an air of legitimacy. I'm not falling for it, and I'm hoping no one else is fooled. On the intro, if we truly can't edit until consensus is achieved, then while we're waiting for that, the default should at least be the one that's been here for years -- not the censored version that does a disservice to the reader because the important bits are left out, and that the AR people are delighted with (because the important bits are left out). In truth, that intro is pretty crappy which is why I tried to make it better, but if the AR people insist on immediately reverting my attempt at an improvement, then fine, I'll put the old, crappy intro back up as the default while we're seeking consensus.
    So let's talk about the new intro: It's standard practice that you present the most relevant aspects of a topic first. If the average person has heard of Aesthetic Realism, it's either in relation to the idea that it's a cult, or to its professed cure for homosexuality. If you look in the popular press, those are the references you see to Aesthetic Realism, period. (And of course I'm talking *independent* references, not the op-eds that the Aesthetic Realists spend much of their time trying to get into print.) For example, here's the most recent one, by Stephen Hunter, who won a Pulitzer Prize for criticism, writing here in Commentary magazine: "It reminds me of those screwball buttons an odd New York psychiatric cult used to send out, protesting the New York Times’s refusal to acknowledge them, insisting on 'Aesthetic Realism’s Right to Be Known.'" (source) Going back further, we've got New York Magazine who called them "a cult of messianic nothingness", and the long exposés on AR's cult aspects in both the New York Post and Jewish Times which have already been discussed here. And yes, the AR people will continue to raise objections to those articles being reputable sources, but that's what exists, so that's what we've got to go on. Much as the AR people wish otherwise, there is scarcely any *recent* (last 20 years), *independent* treatment of AR in the popular press about AR as a *philosophy*, as opposed to the cult aspects/gay cure. AR's claims to fame are its alleged cure for gayness and the fact that many notable people, and lots of former members, say it's a cult. These are the things most associated with the group, and so that's why they get top billing.
    With that in mind, I propose this intro:
    Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.[25] Siegel devoted most of his life to teaching Aesthetic Realism to his students, who created the Aesthetic Realism Foundation to continue that work. The Aesthetic Realism group is controversial for their claim that the study of the philosophy can change people from gay to straight, and by claims by former members that it operates as a mind-control cult. /ref/"[Monumental Man: The Controversial Legacy of Eli Siegel]", Melissa Goldman, Jewish Times, August 22, 2003 /ref/
    The primary teachings of Aesthetic Realism are:
    • Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
    • Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
    • The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things in order to see one's self as superior—causes unhappiness and even insanity. MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." --Wikipedia Talk Page Guidelines Nathan43 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    I don't think this introduction is acceptable since Mr. Bluejay's assertion that the two primary ways Aesthetic Realism is known (as a cult and for curing homosexuality) is just that--a personal assertion (POV). It seems to be out of place in an introduction that should seek to simply describe the thing itself--not to promote it and not to denigrate it. In my own admittedly unscientific search on the topic, I found only a few scattered references to Aesthetic Realism as cult, in most instances by the same people and most notably by Mr. Bluejay himself, and even fewer about the homosexuality matter. But I did find many references such as this one from the Darian (CT.) News: "Aesthetic Realism, founded in 1941 by poet and critic Eli Siegel, is dedicated to the understanding of and greater respect for people, art, the world, with public seminars, classes in many subjects, individual consultations, art exhibitions in the Terrain Gallery, musical and dramatic events by the acclaimed Aesthetic Realism Theatre Company." ([6]) That (minus perhaps the word "acclaimed") seems a far better and less biased description if this is what we are searching for here. The controversial matters should have their place in the article but only after the thing itself has been described. [[User:Jack Cobb [Jack Cobb]] ([User talk:Jack Cobb|talk]]) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcobb1902 (talk • contribs)

    71, I'm afraid you're wrong that "nobody is getting away with anything here." The AR people succeeded in getting the most critical points removed from the intro, and now they instantly revert any attempt to add them back -- while disingenuously titling their revert "Please do not edit without consensus." (Remember what I said about co-opting WP terminology?) And AR's newest sock puppet above is not worth responding to. I've lost track of how many times they've created a new account whose only activity is editing this article or this Talk page, often showing knowledge of WP terms or procedures that no true newbie would know. The reference quoted by "Jack Cobb" is laughable -- it's a PUBLIC NOTICE in an online community calendar -- written (and signed) by one of the Aesthetic Realists! It's not an *independent* article, and it's not even an article at all. So let me repeat what I said earlier: "Much as the AR people wish otherwise, there is scarcely any *recent* (last 20 years), *independent* treatment of AR in the popular press about AR as a *philosophy*, as opposed to the cult aspects/gay cure." That remains true. The AR people have certainly offered no evidence to the contrary.
    Getting back to the intro, the intro to the Scientology article is good, and could serve as a model. It's four paragraphs, with the fourth paragraph being criticism, the lead sentence of which is, "Scientology has been surrounded by controversies since its inception. It has often been described as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its members, charging exorbitant fees for its spiritual services." However, I'm not going to put the effort into writing a new intro based on the Scientology format when the AR people are simply going to object to any criticism of AR being included in the intro. As soon as they show that they're willing to be honest and reasonable, then we'll have the opportunity to move forward. MichaelBluejay (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    I've undone lead change by Bluejay. Mr. Bluejay, it seems Lore Mariano is working on a lead. Please wait until we can come to an agreement as per WillBebeck's instructions.Keravnos (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    I have not reverted it, but still believe disambiguation is unnecessary and should be removed. There is no other consistent use of this term, so there is no ambiguity. Those searching for Aesthetic Realism on Wikipedia want to see an article on this topic. Those wanting realism or aesthetics will search under those topics. Please refrain from changing the article page before consensus is reached, and MichaelBluejay please discuss proposed changes under the proper heading.Trouver (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    The purpose of a disambiguation is to make clear for the reader who might be confused exactly what they are getting into and where, if they were actually looking for another topic, they might find it. If you look around Wikipedia, you'll see that disambiguations are used for identical terms with multiple meanings, similar terms, easily confused terms, and even just common misspellings. Even if you were absolutely right that no one had ever used the term "aesthetic realism" outside of Siegel's philosophy, the disambiguation would be appropriate. But more importantly, there is a concept called aesthetic realism which has nothing to do with Eli Siegel and everything to do with the realist approach to philosophy applied to aesthetics. Please see the following links:
    • [7] wiki realism disambig
    • [8] journal article about the 2 uses of the terms
    • [9] academic paper titled aesthetic realism not about Siegel's philosophy
    The first shows how many tens of different uses of realism the reader could wander upon, several of them dealing directly with art and aesthetics. The second is an article literally about the difference between aesthetic realism as Siegel means it and aesthetic realism as it would be interpreted by most scholars of philosophy. The third is a link to a chapter in a book on philosophy. It is actually titled "Aesthetic Realism" and it has absolutely nothing to do with Eli Siegel's philosophy. So, we could have a vote on this, but it seems to me that the evidence is clearly in line with both the details and the purpose of disambiguation policy. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

    Aesthetic Realism: the philosophy

    Here is the proposed text with sources for the first section.

    Primary sources are used in parts which require a direct explanation of the philosophy. Secondary sources for this section are: "Eli Siegel's system lives," by James H. Bready, "Baltimore Evening Sun" (July 28, 1982); "How a Major Poet Is Ostracizd by Lit Cliches: Eli Siegel in View," by William Packard, "newsArt The Smith"; "Form and Content in Color,” by Ralph Hattersley, "Popular Photography," July 1964; "Contemporary Authors," entry on Eli Siegel by Deborah A. Straub; "Cataloguing Critiques," a submission by Martha Shepp to C. Staples and & H. Williams at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; "It's better to try to build a world on love," by Bryan Patterson, "Sunday Herald Sun," Melbourne , Australia (April 19, 2009); "From Here to Obscurity: Eli Siegel's Neglected Path to Wisdom," by Michael Kernan, "The Washington Post" (August 16, 1978).

    Proposed text

    Aesthetic Realism: the Philosophy

    Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful—like the structure of a successful poem or painting. Since reality, which Siegel defined as “everything that begins where your fingertips end", is made in a beautiful way it "can be liked honestly". [26] [27] [28]

    Siegel explains that beauty is the unity, or making one, of reality's opposites: "In reality opposites are one; art shows this." [29] [30] A good poem, for instance, is both logical and passionate at once (these are opposites). [31] Logic is order, passion accentuates freedom. So a good poem represents the structure of the world: freedom and order made one. Freedom at one with order is what we see in an electron, the solar system, a tree whose leaves are shaking in a summer breeze. [32]

    The reasoning is similar for other opposites. Siegel asked that since a beautiful poem is one and many, and reality is one and many, [33] isn't this evidence too that reality is beautiful and can be liked the way we like a good poem?

    A primary teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is every person's "greatest, deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis." But Aesthetic Realism recognizes another competing desire—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important. [34] [35] [36]

    Since its beginnings in the 1940s Aesthetic Realism has said three things must change in order for the world to be better: 1) the contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, nationality--which is the underlying cause of racism and makes war attractive; 2) the ill will on which unjust management of land, industry, and commodities is based; and 3) the feeling that “the world’s failure or the failure of a person enhances one’s own life.” Until good will, not contempt, is the chief thing present in economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.” [37]

    Aesthetic Realism proposes that one’s attitude to the world governs how we see everything: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. [38] [39] When we seek self-esteem through contempt, "the addition to self through lessening something else", we have to be unjust to people and things. [40] Out of contempt, instead of building up our self-approval we end up disliking ourselves. [41]And in doing so, we lessen the capacity of our own minds to perceive and feel in the fullest manner. Aesthetic Realism holds that in the extreme, this contempt makes for insanity. [42] [43] That is why in everything one does, Aesthetic Realism argues, he or she has the ethical obligation to give full value to things and people as the mean of liking oneself. To honor that obligation is seen as the same condition as accuracy, mental well-being, and joy.. [44] [45] [46]

    LoreMariano (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

    Draft references

    Note: this unavoidably also contains references from other threads on the page.

    1. ^ http://www.aestheticrealism.net/tro/tro247.html
    2. ^ http://michaelbluejay.com/x/jewishtimes.html
    3. ^ http://www.counteringthelies.com
    4. ^ http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Siegel-Biography.html
    5. ^ http://michaelbluejay.com/x/jewishtimes.html
    6. ^ http://www.counteringthelies.com
    7. ^ Siegel, Eli (21 December 1977), "Aesthetic Realism: A Tripartite Study", The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #247
    8. ^ Siegel, Eli (21 December 1977), "Aesthetic Realism: A Tripartite Study", The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #247
    9. ^ http://www.aestheticrealism.org
    10. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources#Source:_Edward_Green_writes_about_Aesthetic_Realism_in_peer-reviewed_professional_publications:_here.2C_a_philosophy_journal_and_a_musicology_journal
    11. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources#Professor_Linda_Ann_Kunz_writes_about_Aesthetic_Realism_in_Smithsonian
    12. ^ http://edgreenmusic.org/
    13. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources#Source:_Ralph_Hattersley_writes_about_Eli_Siegel_as_philosopher_and_concepts_of_Aesthetic_Realism_in_the_article_.E2.80.9CForm_and_Content_in_Color.E2.80.9D
    14. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources#Source:_William_Packard_writes_about_Aesthetic_Realism
    15. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Sources#Source:_Arnold_Perey._.5B1.5D_Columbia_University_doctoral_dissertation.3B_.5B2.5D_article_in_the_peer-reviewed_anthropological_journal_Oceania
    16. ^ http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Teaching_Method-RP_Penguins.html
    17. ^ http://chaimkoppelman.net/
    18. ^ http://www.perey-anthropology.net/insea.pdf
    19. ^ http://www.aestheticrealism.org/speakers-authors.htm
    20. ^ http://www.aestheticrealism.net/tro/
    21. ^ http://michaelbluejay.com/x/jewishtimes.html
    22. ^ http://www.counteringthelies.com
    23. ^ http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/4/438
    24. ^ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:E51446
    25. ^ http://www.aestheticrealism.org
    26. ^ James H. Bready, in the Baltimore Evening Sun: “Eli Siegel's system lives" "In brief, the Siegelian lifeview holds 'all reality, including the reality that is oneself [to be] the aesthetic oneness of opposites.' Motion and rest, surface and depth, love and anger, and so on, once identified, can and must be reconciled..."
    27. ^ Eli Siegel: ”In Aesthetic Realism, beauty is the putting together of things that can be thought of as opposites….Aesthetic Realism says that reality is aesthetics….Reality is, when completely seen, beautiful: that is, reality consists of a mingling in aesthetic relation, of such opposites as the orderly and disorderly….” Aesthetic Realism: Three Instances, N.Y.
    28. ^ Eli Siegel: “If … the structure of the world corresponds to the structure music may have or a novel may have [or any art], that much the world may be beautiful in the deepest sense of the word; and therefore can be liked. “Good Sense for the World,” The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #221 (22 June 1977); URL: http://www.aestheticrealism.net/tro/tro221.html
    29. ^ William Packard: “And as far as Aesthetic Realism goes, it is eminent good sense. Eli Siegel has boiled it down to a simple formula: ‘In reality, opposites are one; art shows this.’ An artist will try to see the opposites in action, in himself and in his world and eventually in his own work.” How a Major Poet Is Ostracized by Lit Cliches: Eli Siegel in View, published in newsArt The Smith; URL: http://www.aestheticrealism.net/NewsArt-Packard-article.htm
    30. ^ Ralph Hattersley: “The solution to our problem with opposites and the use we can make of photography in finding it is pointed to succinctly in the Eli Siegel dictum, ‘In reality opposites are one. Art shows this.’” “Form and Content in Color,” Popular Photography, July 1964, (Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 84-87)
    31. ^ Deborah A. Straub in Contemporary Authors: “This philosophy sprang from Siegel’s belief that ‘what makes a good poem is like what can make a good life…, for poetry is a mingling of intensity and calm, emotion and logic.’” URL: http://pdfserve.galegroup.com/pdfserve/get_item/1/Sad7df8w16_1/SB976_01.pdf
    32. ^ Eli Siegel: “Philosophers have often seen reality as freedom and order, simultaneously and continually. Indeed, the first opposites I chose in my Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites? , 1955, were Freedom and Order. You can see these right now in the world if you look at it: freedom and order are in the street, in the ocean, in woods in upper New York State .” “Good Sense for the World,” The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #221 (22 June 1977); URL: http://www.aestheticrealism.net/tro/tro221.html
    33. ^ Eli Siegel: “Verlaine....has some of the subtlest music in French verse. And here we have the first description of the world which beauty and art illustrate: that is, the world is simple and various at once. It is one universe, even as it has many twigs in twilight.” “Each Time: Like of the World” (op. cit.):
    34. ^ Martha Shepp: “Aesthetic Realism teaches that the deepest desire of every person is to like the world, honestly. This is the purpose of art education, and actually, ALL education. Mr. Siegel explains that the main impediment to liking the world is the desire for contempt. Yes, a desire for contempt. It is a way for us to feel good about ourselves if we can denigrate the “other.” When we can feel that other things are ugly, stupid, boring, beneath us, then we are more glorious. Contempt is the cause of all human cruelty. And the great opposition to contempt is the beauty in the structure of reality itself. Art is a necessity because it shows that beauty.” (Cataloguing Critiques: Submission to C. Staples & H. Williams, the University of Tennessee , Knoxville , TN. URL: http://www.marthashepp.com/cv_syll_phil/CritPresent4Website.pdf
    35. ^ Daily Poetics, URL: http://dailypoetics.typepad.com/daily_poetics/2006/09/the_world_art_a.html
    36. ^ Deborah A. Straub: ”Aesthetic Realism describe[s] the two opposed purposes in everyone’s life. As Siegel once observed, even though "every person, in order to respect himself, has to see the world as beautiful, or good, or acceptable," there is also "a disposition in every person to think he will be for himself by making less of the outside world." According to the philosopher, contempt for the world causes tremendous damage to the self (with effects ranging from boredom to insanity) and, on a larger scale, to the entire world when one nation’s contempt for another leads to war.” Contemporary Authors, URL: http://pdfserve.galegroup.com/pdfserve/get_item/1/Sad7df8w16_1/SB976_01.pdf
    37. ^ Eli Siegel, “Civilization Begins” in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, #228 (10 August 1977).
    38. ^ Deborah A. Straub: “Siegel regarded this emphasis on the attitude of the individual towards the world as the major difference between Aesthetic Realism and other philosophies.” Contemporary Authors, URL: http://pdfserve.galegroup.com/pdfserve/get_item/1/Sad7df8w16_1/SB976_01.pdf
    39. ^ Eli Siegel: “An attitude to the world…governs one in one's everyday life. If you feel that the world is ill-managed, is contemptible, is unkind, you have to show that in how you see Mildred or how you see Morton…” “Aesthetic Realism; or, Is a Person an Aesthetic Situation?” (January 14, 1969); URL: http://www.annefielding.net/Aesthetic-Situation-by-Eli-Siegel.html
    40. ^ Bryan Patterson: “Eli Siegel, the great American poet and historian, defined hatred and contempt of people different from ourselves as the false importance or glory people received from the lessening of people not like themselves.” Herald Sun of Melbourne , Australia (April 19, 2009); URL: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sunday-heraldsun/better-to-try-world-on-love/story-e6frf92o-1225700167216
    41. ^ Lawrence Campbell in Art Students League News: “The only way to be at peace with yourself is to like what's not yourself, and the only way to like what's not yourself is to see the world the way the artist sees his subject—as a unity of esthetic opposites. According to Siegel all the arts and sciences are really attempts at liking and understanding the world.” (March 1983, Volume 37, Number 3)
    42. ^ Deborah A. Straub: “According to the philosopher, contempt for the world causes tremendous damage to the self (with effects ranging from boredom to insanity).” Contemporary Authors; URL: http://pdfserve.galegroup.com/pdfserve/get_item/1/Sad7df8w16_1/SB976_01.pdf
    43. ^ Lawrence Campbell: “Among many bold pronouncements none by Siegel are stronger than the assertion that contempt of the world produces insanity.” Art Students League News (March 1983, Volume 37, Number 3).
    44. ^ Bennett Schiff: “Nancy Starrels once attempted a working definition: Aesthetic Realism, she said, is: ‘The art of liking oneself through seeing the world, art, and oneself as the aesthetic oneness of opposites.’” New York Post (16 June 1957)
    45. ^ Deborah A. Straub: “As Siegel once observed, …‘every person, in order to respect himself, has to see the world as beautiful, or good, or acceptable.’” Contemporary Authors; URL: http://pdfserve.galegroup.com/pdfserve/get_item/1/Sad7df8w16_1/SB976_01.pdf
    46. ^ Michael Kernan in The Washington Post: “There are two elements: oneself and everything that is not oneself, which he calls ‘the world.’ These two opposites must be brought into harmony: By liking the world, one can come to like oneself. If, on the other hand, one feels disdain, or what he calls contempt, for the world, unhappiness results. ‘Contempt can be defined as the lessening of what is different from oneself as a means of self-increase as one sees it,’ he says. Contempt can lead to insanity, according to Siegel.” Washington Post (August 16, 1978); URL: http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Press-Articles-on-Aesthetic-Realism/Wash-Post-Article-Kernan.htm

    Draft discussion

    Lore, you obviously took great care in laying out all of the details; my main criticism is that it reads at times like a personal or even an instructional essay rather than an encyclopedic summary. A few examples:
    • "A good poem, for instance, is both logical and passionate at once."
    Innocent or obvious as it may seem, this statement reflects an aesthetic interpretation about what makes poems "good".
    • "So a good poem represents the structure of the world: freedom and order made one. Freedom at one with order is what we see in an electron, the solar system, a tree whose leaves are shaking in a summer breeze."
    What we see may be what you see or what you think most people see, but aesthetic judgments can't be assumed common or even intersubjective, at least not in Wikipedia.
    • "Aesthetic Realism proposes that one’s attitude to the world governs how we see everything: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone."
    Again, the use of first person plural, while common to philosophy writing, seems out of place here. After all, the very heart of an encyclopedia is third-person accounting (NPOV, neutral, as in no one's point of view, even "ours").
    • "When we seek self-esteem through contempt, 'the addition to self through lessening something else', we have to be unjust to people and things. [15] Out of contempt, instead of building up our self-approval we end up disliking ourselves. [16] And in doing so, we lessen the capacity of our own minds to perceive and feel in the fullest manner."
    I know you might be speaking through the philosohpy rather than just stating these as fact, but I still think the tone is out of place; it comes off like a lecture, like Wikipedia believes it.
    Otherwise it's got great quotations and sourcing. But the general tone seems a little off. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for these comments, I understand what you're saying about getting the encyclopedic tone. I would like to work on editing the sentences you point to, but I have a question about how to do it. If I copy and paste the whole thing below here, won't the references renumber and duplicate on the page? What is the best way to do this? LoreMariano (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not a wiki formatting expert, but I think you can re-paste it just fine. The reference numbers may change or "double" but that doesn't matter since they'll automatically change right back whenever they make it to the main page. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Archive_10&oldid=1069857419"