Talk:Dialogue Among Civilizations

Cleanup, Citations Needed

This article needs a lot of cleanup. In particular, some more dates and citations should be given. This is essentially a current event, so it shouldn't be too hard for someone with an interest (and of course some time on their hands) to annotate this article.... :) Spir 06:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dialamonciv.gif

Image:Dialamonciv.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandelism on this page

The contents of this page are removed without any explanation for the specific reasons and objections. You can add a criticism section if you wish. That would be welcome. Why do you remove the page and its content, leaving the wikipedia entry virtually blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The reasons have been given above (to which you responded earlier), and I attempted to contact you about the matter on your talk page after I first eliminated the plagiarized material. So a "Dialog" was attempted, but you ignored it. Also, the changes aren't vandalism (see WP:VANDALISM for the definition in regards to Wikipedia policy), it's merely a call for a restart. So, restart. Don't copy and paste huge sections from pages linked to in the External links section. Instead summarize, give informative headers, and use an encyclopedic and neutral tone. But there is no reason to let you "make some changes" to the pages as it was. It was a complete mess and not salvageable as it was. Its state was similar to a car that's been totally destroyed, you can't just "make some changes" and have it be all right. It has nothing to do with hating you or the theory. I don't know you and I don't have an opinion on the theory. I just know a page that doesn't match Wikipedia policy and guidelines. KieferFL (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Perhaps, I missed some things in the editing process of this page, but that is because I am inexperienced in wikipedia. Sorry about that. Specifically about cut/paste, I think there needs to be some text there to explain the theory. I tried to find the relevant issues from the web and I referenced them later afterwords. I will add more references, per your suggestion. Actually the references where added to the last edit, but you just removed the whole document, without checking if it has addressed your objections. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the document was reverted to an earlier state because the page:

1. Had large sections of plagiarized material
2. Was confusing
3. Didn't always have a neutral point of view
4. Didn't have an encyclopedic, informational tone
5. Was bulky and difficult to read
6. Didn't have references

Your restoring those sections, even with references, did not come close to fixing the other problems (#1-5). As I stated earlier, it is because the page as it was was not salvageable that it has been reverted to its earlier state by myself and other editors.

I think that it is important to also reinforce the fact that these changes have nothing to do with the theory or you. It also has nothing to do with hindering your freedom of speech, as you wrote on User talk:Luna Santin and User talk:Cretog8. (Although, I think the fact that you see the edits as a hindrance of your freedom of speech shows a lack of a neutral point of view.) I have no "objections" to what was on the page beyond the six points above.

So my suggestion is to start a new section here on the talk page with what sections you would like to see added to the page so that a dialog about the page can truly begin and the page can become open again for editing. (Also, please use ~~~~ to sign your comments. It makes following who is commenting much easier.) KieferFL (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

huge article expansion

129.2.170.113 has significantly expanded the article. There may be good stuff mixed in there, but it's hard to identify. Problems:

1. It's really just too much material. Stuff should be summarized and described for an article.
2. Material is copied in bulk from other sources.
3. Probably because it's copied, much of it reads like promotional literature.
4. Digressions on Huntington go too far. The Naziism stuff appears (without some other writing making the connection) to be just smearing. The rest goes too far into Huntington, when this article is not primarily about him. CRETOG8(t/c) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree. It was the strange, disjointed, and non-encyclopedic tone of the page that alerted me to the large amount of duplicated material. The entire speech by Mohammad Khatami at the UN in 2000 is copied and added, for instance from http://www.un.int/iran/dialogue/2000/articles/2.html . The material is overwhelming and not very informative in that form. KieferFL (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the first response, Cretog8.

1. It seems to me that after you have removed everything, now there is too little material.
2. It explains the theory whether it is copied or not is irrelevant.
3. It is not promotional. It is a bout a theory and the statements are from the person who proposed the theory.
4. It is not a digression. It is for comparison with another theory. Note that it starts with:

"One might compare Huntington's views in the Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity book with the Nazi racial philosophy." This is an unbiased sentence. What follows is a set of facts.

1. Please specify what you object to exactly, instead of removing the whole document and vandalizing it.
2. What is it about "Dialog" that you do not like exactly?
3. If you delete other people's work, you do not believe in the "freedom of speech."
4. If you hate me or the theory, it does not justify that you should delete my text.
5. Please add a section to it and add your rational criticism about the theory, which would be welcome!
6. Please let me make some changes, instead of abruptly deleting the article!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 (talk) - 16:14, 29 August 2008

Hello--Thanks for setting up a user account, that isn't necessary but makes conversation easier. I suspect you're new as a Wikipedia editor, because frankly, your edits are pretty far-out from what's normally considered reasonable here. So it's hard for me to address your points without simply saying, "Explore Wikipedia, see how other things are handled, look at editing guidelines, and then come back." I'll try to address them regardless:

1. I removed just about everything because it was clear there was a lot of stuff which needed to be removed, and it was hard to identify any nuggets which should have remained.
2. For a WP article it does matter whether material is copied or not. Partly it matters for copyright reasons. Partly it matters for the sake of making material clear. An article on a topic is not a book on the topic--it needs to pick out bits and pieces which are essential to understanding, rather than throwing everything in.
3. It read as promotional material. If presenting someone else's idea, it needs to be precisely clear whose idea it is, so that it doesn't read as if the article agrees or disagrees. That didn't happen in your edits.
4. As far as digression--again, an article needs to have some limit to its scope. Regarding your phrase, "One might compare Huntington's views in the Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity book with the Nazi racial philosophy.", I honestly can't take your argument seriously. It would not make sense for me to go to an article and say, "One might compare Mohandas Ghandi to a Sea urchin.", and then write four paragraphs about sea urchins. Also the "One might" formulation is an extreme example of weasel-wording. If someone notable has made such a comparison, then you can reference that particular person, rather than saying "One might...".
5. My lack of specificity was again because there was just so much stuff.
6. There is nothing about "Dialog" which I am aware of disliking.
7. Regarding freedom of speech, that's another aspect which you need to look at Wikipedia policy to learn about. We naturally edit articles to try to make them sensible, helpful, and of appropriate point of view. That means leaving out a lot of material.
8. I don't hate you or the theory.
9. I'm not currently qualified to add to this article, and I'm busy with other things, so I doubt I'll start adding.
10. I suggest you experiment in a sandbox to refine your material, or make suggestions here on the talk page. That can get you feedback before it hits the article. Once it hits the article, it's not reasonable to expect us to leave the article in bad shape while you refine it. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will try my best to address these points, and I agree with some of them, to different extents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.170.113 (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If I am not mistaked, the last edit before the page was made semi-protected being "17:29, 29 August 2008 129.2.170.113", addressed all the issues that you have raised above. So if you can tell me which section still requires tuning, I will be happy to fix it. Thanks. I assume the page can not be edited now by anyone. Is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolerance44 (talk • contribs)

I skimmed that edit. It doesn't seem to address most of the points I made. There's still too much, the tone is still promotional, it seems that much of it is still copied in bulk from other sources. You removed the "One might..." bit for Naziism, which is good, but then there's no reason to include the Naziism stuff. You don't need to go hunting for every philosophy which conceivably could criticize the ideas. If you want to include criticism, find criticism which is clearly targeted at this "Dialog" stuff. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cretog8, Thanks a lot for the information you provided on my talk page about editing in wikipedia. Also I appreciate your time in helping me create a better article for Dialog. About the last edit as discussed above:

1. The longest section is the statement at the UN. I can remove that to make the article shorter, and just point a link to another page. However, perhaps the fact that an article is long is not a problem by itself, as there are articles in wikipedia, which are much longer (e.g. on John McCain). In fact the more thorough an article is, the better. So perhaps the concern is about its significance to the article. It may seem that the statement is another crap speech by a politician (every nationality can unfortunately relate to this as politician are the same in all countries), as I had the same mindset when I first noticed the text elsewhere. After reading the text carefully, I realized that it is a very well-thought out and valuable text, to have as a section in this article. So, I decided to include it here for the interested reader, and if someone is not interested, they could skip that section. It seemed to me that the details were extremely important and inspiring, and without it, the reader would be deprived of a fair understanding of the topic. Of course, you can decide for yourself about its value, but I think one could only make a good judgment, if he spends 30 minutes to read the statement, word by word, and ponders about its intend. An interested reader on the topic is likely to do that.
2. About using the term promotional, I am concerned. I will read the whole article again to make sure that there is no such implication. However, to me, it is not clear what promotional means. If I state that "London is the capital of UK." One might say that it is a promotion of London. Is it? Perhaps, depending on how we define promotional. But lets assume it is promotional for London. Is it an issue? To me, it seems no, since it is a factual statement. If one disagrees, one could add a section and point out that under these circumstances, some people believe that London should not be the capital of UK. Still it seems fine to me.
3. After all, we listen to promotions on TV, radio, read it in newspapers on products and on the web. I doubt that anyone really objects to a promotion, unless it is untruthful.
4. I will change the wording of the sections so that it is sourced, and clear why it is relevant to this document. As a result, it should have a better flow as well.
5. About Huntington, perhaps it is not necessary to be discussed in the article, as it will not be a significant part of the theory.
6. I really do not intend to do any other contributions to wikipedia right now since I am busy. But the only reason I am working on this article is because of the significant and world-wide impact that this theory could have, if it is implemented. So the only motive here is for the sake of humanity and reducing the suffrage of millions across the globe, due to wars.
7. Is there any other specific details, about any of the sections, that is of concern?

Thanks for your time. Tolerance44 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1. A long article, such as the one for John McCain can be well-written and informative. This article was long and poorly organized and difficult to understand. The speech may be wonderful, but that's no reason to add it verbatim and in its entirety on this page. It gets summarized, and the references link to the page with the entire text for those interested readers.
2. A promotional tone is the same as a non-NPOV tone. "London is the capital of UK" is not promotional, it is factual. "London is the best capital in Europe." is promotional. Even "London is a wonderful city." is promotional. "London is making strides to improve its standards of living." is factual.
3. I doubt that anyone really objects to a promotion, unless it is untruthful. When it comes to a source that people need to have confidence that it is trying to be unbiased and is factual, promotional passages - even truthful promotional passages - will naturally find objection for inclusion.
4. Yes, it should.
5. ...as it will not be a significant part of the theory. "Will not be?" Should read "is not", I hope.
6. Once again, this definitely shows that you are not really a neutral person with regards to this topic. Remember to keep factual. What is the theory? Where did it originate? What are the opposing viewpoints that have arisen? What effect has this theory had in its practice? Those kinds of questions should be answered plainly and without editorializing. I've always been of the mindset that if an idea is worthwhile, then it doesn't need "spinning".
7. As I wrote to you earlier, I think it would be better if you started a discussion about what you would like to add. I have given 4 main topics in the point above that can be a starting point. To go through the article and discuss what could stay and what specifically shouldn't is, once again, like going through a wrecked car and pointing out which dial is still functional, when the engine is in the back seat of the car. It isn't going to help get this article to where it should be.

KieferFL (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

KieferFL -- Regarding your comments, please note that in fact, I agree with most of them. However, I am confident that you are biased and that is unfortunate. I prefer to continue this talk mainly with Cretog8, who seems to be reasonable and neutral. The reasons why I think you are biased are as follows:

1. You have just created this account, solely to influence this article and there is no other history of your work, while it is clear from your comments that you are an experienced wiki contributor.
2. As a result of this action, it is difficult to assume "good faith" in your comments. You have been trained and are getting paid to do this.
3. There were other fake user accounts also created to revert my article, as the history shows.
4. If you were neutral, there was no need for creating this fake account!
5. I do not have any past history in my account too, but I am new and I want to contribute and create an article, for a cause that I believe in. I like the theory and find it reasonable. But having no history is not acceptable, for a proficient user who is watchfully monitoring other articles, hinders other people's freedom of speech, and gets paid by the government to do this.
6. I do not expect you to respond to these points, as I believe it would not make much of a difference. I will continue to collaborate with Cretog8, so that we create a better article. I can not imagine that your actions can have a reasonable justification.
7. The fact that in comment 6 and previously in this page, you point out that I am not neutral, is only another proof for the fact that you do not assume "good faith" in other people's contributions, exactly because you think others are also paid like yourself.
8. The fact that in 6 and 7, you keep ordering me what to do is a sign of hypocrisy. Please note that we are at the "same" level and are trying to create a good article on a topic. It is not the case that this is a court, you are the judge, and I am the defendant, and I need to justify anything to you. Of course as human beings, we may all feel like we should tell others how to act, and I may sometimes do the same. We can all be hypocrites. The more I do that, the more it demonstrates my intellectual incapability, in terms of evaluating the situation realistically.
9. Having said that, I will incorporate your suggestions into the article. Thank you. Tolerance44 (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem like an experienced wiki contributor because I am an experienced wiki contributor. I am a volunteer administrator at LyricWiki.org (see http://lyricwiki.org/User:Kiefer), one of the largest non-Wikipedia wikis. If you look at my contributions here, you'll notice that my first edit is December 26, 2007, and that most of my edits concern vandalism or music-related errors on pages that I have referenced for LyricWiki.

Begging your pardon, but you really can't believe that I'm somehow trying to purposely derail you. I mean, seriously...trained and paid? Who would possibly train me and pay me? Fake user accounts? All but Thereistoomuchwriting have lengthy histories. (And all that user did was strike out one section - didn't even remove it.) So, which do you think are fake accounts? And how is what I'm telling you any different than what Cretog8 is telling you?

I have been civil, courteous, and have done nothing more horrible than try to be helpful to a new editor who I thought wanted to improve this article but didn't know where to begin. Your comments, however, show a strong streak of paranoia, despite my repeated assurances to you that these changes have nothing to do with you or the subject. (I'm still really not sure why you would even think anyone would be against you or the theory....) I think that you're upset because I called you on your non-neutral point of view. For me, it's fine that you don't have a NPOV. It's just that your writing must not reflect that NPOV. That's not me saying that, that's the Wikipedia policy. KieferFL (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

KieferFL -- Thanks for this note.

1. Kiefer is not the same user as KieferFL that you are using now!!! So, KieferFL has been created as a fake account, as I explained previously. But, please STOP!
2. Lets "assume" you are neutral.
3. There is a major difference between the "neutrality" and "rationality" of your comments and Cretog8's.
4. Cretog8 never got into an argument of neutrality and is specific about the statements in the document and I absolutely agree with his comments.
5. I do not want to get into a "non-constructive" argument with you and waste time.
6. Hopefully (?), our common goal is to create a better article, and if you help me do that, it would be welcome.
7. About your objections to the theory (that you mentioned spinning, etc. before), it would be great, if you later create a subsection under "Opposing Views" (as there is such a section), and elaborate on your criticisms. I absolutely think you have freedom of speech, as well as me.
8. There are a few (but not many) logical errors in your "03:45, 1 September 2008" response, but I doubt that pinpointing those errors will change your views, since the problem "seems" to be deeper. Again, my goal is not to point out the problems in your reasoning, but to create a better document.
9. So I will continue and respond the points that Cretog8 mentioned about the document.
10. Sorry if you are not happy about the issues that I pointed out previously. But it is important that we tolerate each other. Hence, I would tolerate any opposing view that you add to that section of the article. I do not mind if others read your view, and support your it. Tolerance44 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My response is below, as this is a side topic. KieferFL (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Regarding Khatami's speech. there's a few problems:
   1. I'm not sure what it's copyright status is. It seems as though it should be OK to reproduce it, but it's far from clear that's legally the case. For copyright questions, you could try posting a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
   2. Although the result of the above might be irrelevant. I'm also not sure if there's Wikipedia guidelines for reproducing entire speeches. Looking at the List of speeches, which includes several of the most significant speeches in the English language, it seems that most of the speeches are described, rather than reproduced, unless the speech itself was quite short.
   3. Reproducing the whole speech implies a POV, which apparently is your POV (it's fine to have a POV!) that it is a "very well-thought out and valuable text", as well as "extremely important and inspiring". By reproducing a long speech, that message comes through implicitly if not explicitly, that the article agrees with the speech, or thinks it extremely insightful, or such.
   4. It really is just very long. Following WP:UNDUE devoting that much of an article to one speech is only appropriate if the speech is by far the most important thing in the article. And having that would again be a POV problem.
2. Promotional language--some of it's subtle.
   1. Your introduction started with "What is "diversity?" What can people do to open the lines of communication and redefine the meaning of diversity? How can we better understand diversity? What is the overall perception of diversity? These were the questions the General Assembly grappled with in 1998, when the year 2001 was announced as the United Nations Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations." In some sense that's factual, but it's a style of rhetoric which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. It has the tone of something implying that this program for a "Dialog Among Civilizations" was a good and important thing. It might seem silly to argue that it's not good and important, but even that judgement (beyond the judgement that it's important enough for an article) is the kind of POV which is inappropriate.
   2. The material on the Foundation is likewise written as though from the Foundation itself. It is completely fair to present some material such as "The Foundation for Dialogue among Civilizations says that, 'Insecurity is a result of violence derived from the arrogance of the mighty on the one hand and the humiliation of the oppressed on the other'". However, it's not reasonable to describe their entire philosophy and program in detail, only critical points should be picked out.

Anyway, that's a bit. I hope it's helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cretog8. I absolutely agree with your comments. I will consider these and respond soon. Please note my recent comment to KieferFL, as it is possibly relevant to our discussion. Tolerance44 (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cretog8,

1: Regarding Khatami's speech, it is great that you justify your comments with wiki articles like POV and UNDUE, so that it is clear why the speech may be unnecessary. Looking at the speech again, I think it would be better to remove this section and only provide a link. It is relatively long.

2.1: in fact that text is from http://www.un.org/Dialogue/background.html. So one point is that it is my promotion or rhetoric. I believe, the other issue you point out about POV, on this section, is basically not applicable. Because the definition states that "POV is often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects." However, as you said, the usefulness of dialog is not a controversial subject. I read the POV article and it was VERY helpful. Thanks for pointing this out. Among other issues, it sates that "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy." We will do that in this article, by accurately stating who has what point of view.

2.2: Yes, it is from the foundation itself. I am not sure why it is not appropriate to include those very short sections for Vision and Mission. Notice that now, the article is already very short and includes an Intro, Vision, and Mission (all in two pages), to explain a theory that has been described in a book with several hundred pages. I think this is not undue attention and the minimum that is required for the reader to understand what the theory is about. The text is short and not redundant. So summarizing it will impact the flow and make it nonsense. I am not sure how this can really be shortened, and still describe several hundred pages of a book. Maybe you have some suggestion that I can not think of. Thanks. Tolerance44 (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming at this slowly. I'll cut more egregious material as I see it, with a comment. I'll try to bring more detail to the talk page on other things. So far, it looks like you're respecting the forms, but not the spirit. While stuff is attributed, it's multi-paragraph quotes. There's material (for instance, the Nazi stuff again, which I already cut) which has no obvious relation to the article.

I have a possible suggestion. It may be that the article you want to write is not this article, but something related. Perhaps you want to write a book article on Khatami's Dialogue Among Civilizations. (Is it translated into English? That would help a lot.) Or maybe you want to write an article about the Foundation itself. Either one of these approaches would still need to be limited beyond what you're doing now, but it might be closer to what you're aiming at. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not really referring to the book or foundation here. Just trying to find what is related to the theory and explains the theory, for this article. I think there is an obvious relation with the Nazi stuff. The introduction section emphasizes "diversity." The Nazi section starts with: "According to Nazism, it is an obvious mistake to permit or encourage "diversity" and plurality within a nation." So I am not sure how the relation seemed unclear? The theory encourages diversity and dialog. The opposing Nazi philosophy discourages diversity as explained in the subsection. Could you please specify your objection? Please reword this section accordingly, if you think it is necessary. Note that in the talk page we discussed Huntington, but not Nazi philosophy. The connection with Nazi philosophy seemed clear to me. Perhaps you can reiterate this connection in your own words, at the beginning of this subsection, or I can add something? Tolerance44 (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the sections on Vision and Mission need to be combined, and the combined section needs to be shortened. Pick out the gems which really make clear whatever it is the Foundation is trying to say (as near as you can tell), and just use those.

My feeling is the best bit from Vision is: "Dialogue among civilizations, viewed from an ethical perspective, is in fact an invitation to discard what might be termed the power oriented will, in favour of a love oriented one. In this case, the result of dialogue will be empathy and compassion. And the interlocutors will primarily be thinkers, leaders, artists and all benevolent intellectuals who are the true representatives of their respective cultures and civilizations."

The Mission part, I'd likely trim to something like:

The Foundation for Dialogue Among Civilisations is an international foundation established in 2007 to promote the institution of regular dialogue between the world’s peoples, cultures, civilisations and religions in order to promote peace, justice and tolerance. Among its strategic objectives, it is particularly concerned with, "promoting and facilitating the much needed dialogue between Muslim societies and other societies around the world".

The Foundation aims to promote dialog and research through organizing, "cultural, artistic, and scientific events including debates, fora, symposia and seminars" and publishing related research.CRETOG8(t/c) 04:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I also think these two sections can be further shortened. But, I am not sure what is the objection there, in general. The whole article does not seem too long to begin with, but as I said, I assume we can shorten it too. Tolerance44 (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than devoting a section to The Clash of Civilizations, I think you could organize it differently. First, you don't need as much material about that book/essay (I don't think). If it was that book/essay which prompted Khatami's speech, which prompted the U.N.'s "year of" which prompted the founding of the Foundation, then there's your organization. The first (or maybe second or something) section can be a history section and mention the Clash in just enough detail to motivate the rest. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not completely understand/follow your note above. But I think you are saying that the clash section and who we are section is not related. I think in the heading section, it is clarified that the dialog theory was in response to the clash theory. That is why this section is necessary, as it is an opposing view to the dialog theory. The who we are section is related, similar to the Nazi section, because it proposes that diversity is dangerous and bad! Probably, these connections should be clarified for each subsection, since it is not be clear for the reader, at first glance. I agree that the connection should be specifically stated. Tolerance44 (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we number the points we mention here, to make the discussion easier. I forgot to mention that the Pearl Foundation is relevant, because it encourages dialog. It is basically following what is proposed in the theory. I am really not sure how this was unclear!? Tolerance44 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for a Stop to the Personal Attacks

You know, I don't know how many times that I have to say this, Tolerance44: I do not have any opinion towards you, or the Dialogue Among Civilizations idea. You have presented no evidence that I feel any differently. What have I written that has led you to believe that I have an "opposing view"? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Before I stumbled on this page, I hadn't even heard of the idea. Why the baseless attacks, then?

Also, to say that I am not the Kiefer at LyricWiki is ridiculous. You have no reason to state that. I mean, really...I just happened to come across an administrator at another wiki site that has the same user name as me, states on their user page that they are from Florida (hence the FL in my user name here, because just "Kiefer" was already taken), and I just happen to edit and fight vandalism primarily on music pages? That's some pretty crazy bit of coincidence. At any rate, here's proof that I am who I say I am. Now, quit trying to attack my credibility. Stop the conspiracy theories and paranoia. Get back to talking about the article. KieferFL (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

more on expansion

(I'm starting a new section just because the old one's gotten long, but continuing in same vein.)

First, general points:

• It's extremely obvious from the article that the writer of the article supports the idea of the Dialogue. The article in its final state needs to not leave that impression. Keep that basic goal in mind.
• It looks like you're engaging in what WP calls synthesis. That's potentially great in other contexts, but not here. Specifics about this will follow.

OK, more specific points:

1. Pearl Foundation: Has anyone from the Pearl Foundation explicitly referenced the Dialogue Among Civilizations? Or vice-versa, has anyone from the Foundation for Dialog referenced the Peral Foundation? If so, you can mention that they've mentioned it in some context. If not, then you bringing it up here isn't legitimate, because it's synthesis.
2. Nazis: This is the last time I'll honor the discussion of whether mentioning Nazis is appropriate, because it's not worth discussing. I could put into an article on child protective services a section on why the Aztecs sometimes thought it was a good idea to sacrifice children. That would be silly, so is including Nazis here. If Khatami or someone from the Foundation puts an emphasis on Naziism, then you can bring up what they say, but what the Nazis said doesn't matter. Including it is again synthesis, of an egregious sort.
3. Length of quotes: I think this has been adequately addressed above. Long quotes are generally not encyclopedic, may have copyright problems, and give the impression of support. Make it concise, with quotes only when they really add a lot.
4. Clash of Civilizations: Clash is not a response to Dialogue; Dialogue is a response to Clash. It is not clear that Huntington would disapprove of any aspect of the Dialogue. Describing why Khatami (and others?) felth the need to respond to Clash makes sense, setting up Clash as opposing the Dialogue doesn't. If Huntington does oppose the Dialogue, then he's had several years to comment on it, and any comments he has made could be used.

That's a start--it looks like two big things. You need to describe any Dialogue-promoters in a neutral way, which includes limiting the amount of article space you give to their quotes. And you need to only include material which others have identified as being related to the Dialogue. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Long quotes

Not sure how all the discussions above exactly relate to the current article contents, but this article would seem to need fewer long cut-and-pasted quotes, and more general discussion (based on suitable sources)... AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes have been shortened.Tolerance44 (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Foundation

Although the relationship between the Pearl Foundation and the Dialog theory is somewhat clear, due to the objection of one of the editors above, the explicit permission to include the the Pearl Foundation was requested and granted by the Pearl Foundation. Tolerance44 (talk) 03:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's relevant (it would be under some circumstances for getting appropriate licensing of copyrighted material, but the Pearl stuff isn't about that). If the explicit permission you received also demonstrates that there is a relevant connection, then can you provide that evidence? Preferably by something like a link to the evidence at the Pearl Foundation's web site? CRETOG8(t/c) 04:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) The permission for the inclusion of that specific text in this article has been granted by the Foundation. (2) The Foundation believed it is relevant to the theory. I am not sure what else to say. (3) You have additionally removed another comment which was not related to the Pearl Foundation. (4) Could you please revert these deletions, and discuss it further here, if necessary. Thanks. Tolerance44 (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the article, you need to provide evidence. Articles need to be able to refer to sources. To refer to the Pearl Foundation, you'll need some verifiable source which makes the conncetion. It preferably should material which makes the details clear--what connection do they see--so that can come directly from them rather than from you. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is from them, and I am only doing the edit. The relationship is very clear to the Foundation. That is why they granted the permission. I do not expect a news release from the Foundation, but you can verify it personally. Tolerance44 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But you have to understand that that doesn't fit WP policies. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says that the text should be verifiable. The text copied here for the Pearl Foundation is from their web site. You can visit their web site and verify that! Tolerance44 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Parliament of the World's Religions

Similar to other discussion--has the Parliament of the World's Religions explicitly referenced the Dialogue? If so, please provide a reference. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not add this comment and again it is related to the status of the article for years. There are about 10 occurrences of the word "dialogue" on the wiki page of that organization, which I assume has been there for a while. So, I would say whoever added this link had some understanding that it is relevant, and it seems that way to me as well. Tolerance44 (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem--is anyone who says they support international/cross-cultural "dialogue" with a little-d connected to this capital-D Dialogue? That doesn't seem appropriate. In fact, if that's the case, then I expect we could find a quote from most national leaders of the past 50 years supporting the Dialogue before Khatami even mentioned it, and the idea becomes vacuous. If not every use of the idea of little-d dialogue is connected, then there needs to be an explicit connection so that we don't have a lot of freedom to judge what's connected or not. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

the organizations were changed to address this issue.Tolerance44 (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

discussion instead of deletion

Could you please revert your changes to the stable version that was there for one month, before Oct. 9, and discuss your changes here for each section, in the discussion, before applying them to the page, as you suggested previously for my edits some two months ago. The changes are not encyclopedic I think. For example, the introduction does not define the theory in any way, but provides some background with your recent edit! Thanks. Tolerance44 (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed the goals which motivated my deletions. The "stability" period was adequate time for you to do something about it. Since you didn't, I did. I expect that you know more and so would do a better job, so I encourage you to continue to clean it up, with the above conversations in mind. If I removed something you feel is vital, then possibly you can return that material and take out something which is less vital. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What good will cleaning it up do, if you keep deleting everything? Do you think the mission and vision are not necessary, then you can shorten them. I do not understand why all sections have been removed, instead of editing any section that you think is too lengthy. Tolerance44 (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Once trimming down the quotes, there's not enough (in my opinion) to support many sections. If you think sections are vital, then go for it. I'm not comfortable with the section titles "Mission" and "Vision" because they read as POV. Possibly I could be talked out of it. I also wasn't clear on what the distinction was between the two. The "opposing views" section was inappropriate because it wasn't clear that they were opposing views, and--at least relative to the rest of the article--contained too much stuff. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is probably the case that you are trying to motivate me to create a better article, but I feel like I am being attacked! If this is not the case, please revert your changes to the Oct. 9, version by me, and shorten the content of each section, as you wish. Note that I also do not have that much knowledge about the theory to improve it beyond the way it was on Oct. 9. That is why I have not edited it. There is no opposing views section now. The section was renamed, per your previous suggestion one month ago, and I agree with your comment that it is not an opposing view. I think you are jumping to conclusions, as soon as you noticed the Pearl Foundation edit. It is very upsetting and difficult to have a rational dialog and discussion on the discussion page, once the article has been completely destroyed, without any notice.Tolerance44 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the nature of a watchlist that yes, your Pearl Foundation edit did remind me to look at the article again. If you think you can address the various concerns which I and others have brought up here, then please revert the article to its previous state and make those changes. Or work from the version since I changed it. If you don't know enough about the Dialogue, then that's fine. You can do either of two things. You can leave the article small until someone comes along who knows more and wants to add. Or you can go do a lot of research to figure out what to add. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the only pending issue is the long quotes in mission and vision. When you made changes, after noticing the watchlist, a fair reaction would have been to shorten these two sections. Instead the article has been destroyed completely. I honestly think this is not appropriate. Can you please revert these changes. I will make those two sections shorter afterward. Tolerance44 (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed a part of your comment. I will revert your change and shorten those sections.Tolerance44 (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. However, please keep in mind that my edit was--I honestly felt--an improvement. Taking a look at it along with comments here could help you make your changes. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any remaining objection to any section right now? Tolerance44 (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much all the same objections as before. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are not providing any constructive feedback and are biased on occasions. The only pending issue was the long quotes. They have been shortened. It is not clear to me how the article can be improved at this point.Tolerance44 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I'm not making myself clear enough. But it seems that's the case. I have described many issues repeatedly, and made a large edit as an example of what I think is more appropriate. The pending issues are:

• The quotes are still too long, and the way they're presented--as the bulk of the text--provide implicit support for the quotes. They need to be trimmed radically, not slightly.
• The "Other points of view section" is inappropriate.
• The section titles "Mission" and "Vision", at least as currently used, are POV.
• At least two organizations are mentioned without evidence they have a relationship to the article.

There's other things which are somewhat less important, but will still need to be dealt with. Anything in "Related Comments" which should be kept should be integrated with the article. I had turned the links in the article into refs, and they're back to being links. The distinction & connection between the Dialogue, the Year of Dialogue, and the Foundation for Dialogue needs to be clearer. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these points. (1) While I can still trim down the mission and vision, I feel that making the quotes shorter than this would make the description of the vision and mission of the theory "unclear" for a reader. (2) Would you like to edit that section. I agree that it is not very coherent, but I am not sure how to improve it at this point without further research. (3) It may sound that way. What are your suggested section titles. I suggest "What would the Dialog achieve?" and "How do we start the Dialog?" (4) Which two are those so that I will revise them. If you are willing to do that search, that would be fine too. (5) I am sorry, I am not sure what the difference of link and reference is. Can you provide an example please. (6) I agree and will try to address that distinction. Tolerance44 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This has become frustrating enough for me that I'm going to step back and let you do whatever you want at least for a while. I can't tell whether you aren't understanding me or what. This edit has lots of things wrong with it, continuing the problems instead of making improvements. Again, while it might be connected to the Dialog, it isn't clear how it's connected. It's in the "Related Comments" section, which I noted above is already a problem. It reads as a glowing endorsement of the book plus certain ideas in the book, which is POV. It includes a piece of a review, which is overkill for an article like this, again POV, and also unsourced.

Your edits continue to make it appear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. You should try to fix that misunderstanding before making too many edits, and certainly before arguing so vehemently with other editors. Your suggested section titles "What would the Dialog achieve?" and "How do we start the Dialog?" are again not encyclopedic or NPOV. Who says we should start the Dialogue? Who says the Dialogue will achieve anything? The article should be neutral on those points.

Anyway, this is just making me annoyed, so knock yourself out. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jorge Majfud

I removed a quote from Jorge Majfud because it wasn't clear what relevance that has to the article. It doesn't look like the article which was quoted references the Dialogue. CRETOG8(t/c) 05:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This comment was there for some years. You did not object to it previously. I am not sure why the comment seems irrelevant right now? Tolerance44 (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I only noticed now that it's unrelated.CRETOG8(t/c) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed now.Tolerance44 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dialogue Among Civilizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101182742/http://unchronicle.un.org/article/unity-diversity-integrative-approach-intercultural-relations/index.html to http://unchronicle.un.org/article/unity-diversity-integrative-approach-intercultural-relations/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dialogue Among Civilizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120630080218/http://www.dialoguefoundation.org/ to http://www.dialoguefoundation.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dialogue Among Civilizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031133501/http://dialoguefoundation.org/?Lang=en&Page=28 to http://dialoguefoundation.org/?Lang=en&Page=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031133506/http://dialoguefoundation.org/?Lang=en&Page=29 to http://dialoguefoundation.org/?Lang=en&Page=29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125041258/http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D37084%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D37084%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912071240/http://www.atc.org.au/content/view/41/175/ to http://www.atc.org.au/content/view/41/175/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)