Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence

In order to go back to evidence page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence.

User:Wheeler

I am a Classicist. I am trying to write articles for Category:Classical studies. The Classical meaning of words is very different from modern words. We live in an era where everything is "political". Words are used as political rudders, the meaning of words is changing. My whole outlook is to preserve Classical Antiquity and its meanings and language and culture.

I am trying to get an external link to the article [Republic] and I am having a devil of a time at Talk:Republic. I have been doing a lot of reading and new information I receive makes it more certain that the [Classical definition of republic] be revived. I have a ton of evidence that needs to be re-considered. I have tried to put it back up on VFUD but User:Snowspinner has deleted it. I stopped. I don't know why my re-request was deleted. I think it needs some serious study. But I am engaged in talking and trying to find a compromise.WHEELER 15:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amicus Curae from Improv

From what interaction I've had with WHEELER (Who I'll call W throughout the rest of this note), he strikes me as someone who is difficult to deal with and sometimes disruptive in that sense, but not someone who is disruptive in the greater sense of contravening policy in any significant way. It is true that his focus on classics, and his attempt to ensure the primacy of classical thought on Wikipedia is something that causes disagreement with a lot of other editors (including me). However, I don't think this falls within the bounds of POV pushing as it instead seems to be part of legitimate discussion on proper use of terms in articles. Arbitration has been used against people who have kind of similar issues (Chuck F, for example), but in those cases, I think judgement was made against them because they both were more clearly pushing a POV and their breaking the rules of the community in a clear way (evading bans). W may eventually step over that line, but at least given the evidence I have seen, he has not yet. I recommend this be taken again to mediation -- the goal of arbitration should not be to beat down people until everyone can edit harmoniously (as important as that is), but rather to deal with cases where people have stepped way over the line. If W has done that, then more evidence to that effect would be a good thing. --Improv 16:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I heartilly agree. W is not a policy breaker, he is a content producer. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note also that while I don't think that W is doing anything that should be arbitrated against, this does *not* mean that I think he's easy to deal with, nor that his attitude and expression of that attitude are as productive as they should be on Wikipedia. He does, as you note, produce good content. However, at least as far as I have seen, that good content is paired with a bad attitude and a tendency to scream. It would be a very good thing if he were to understand that when dealing with other people, we're sometimes wrong, we don't always get our way, and we need to be able to accept it when we don't get our way and move on. Further, he needs to keep in mind that screaming convinces (almost) noone, and is bad both for the screamed at and the screamer. In summary, I think W has great potential as a good contributor, and has in fact provided good content, but he's a pain to deal with right now, although not in such a way that I think he's stepped enough outside the line as to be punished. Note that this addendum is mainly to clarify my initial comment, which is partly in agreement with Sam Spade's summary/agreement, but is considerably more nuanced than simple support of W. --Improv 16:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Update

Yes, I do plan to add evidence here. Life has been getting in the way for the past few days. I expect to be able to work on the evidence page on Thursday. I hope the case won't move to decision by then. Snowspinner 05:08, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I will point out that being unaware of what precisely he is being accused of puts my client at a substantial disadvantage. It is nearly impossible to defend against the vague innuendo's which have thus far come forward, and if Snowspinner is allowed to slip his evidence and charges in at the last minute, I am afraid there will be precious little ability on our part to respond to them. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologuze most profusely for having the unmitigated gall to have a life outside of Wikipedia. Rest assured, it will not happen again. Snowspinner 15:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, no appologies necessary, I am merely doing my job in defending WHEELER in criticising such unfortunate possibilities. I think it is fair to say that real life trumps encyclopedia volunteer legalism by several degrees. Speaking of which, I am moving, and am without home interenet for about a week. Ergo I formally request an extension of the evidence period, or at least some understanding that charges will be answered slowly. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Professionals speak on Wheeler's behalf

I would like to point out some other help in my case Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER. Comments are adde below:

While his articles on classical subjects have their fair share of flaws, they are almost entirely accurate, well-researched, and extremely well-cited; I speak from about seven years' worth of education in Latin and Greek. I don't see why the deletionist push against his articles has been so strong. Any problems with his articles are problems that can be fixed and edited. For the most part I would not call his articles on classical antiquity original research; what he says is generally stuff that is widely accepted in the field. While I've seen that things have gotten messy when he starts "turf wars" and tries to shoehorn classical definitions into modern articles without proper context, when he writes on classical subjects his work has been very good. I'd much rather see an edit war (although I'd hope for that not to happen) than an article with a lot of good information deleted. I'd rather see articles on encyclopedic topics fixed rather than deleted.Kevin M Marshall 19:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've not looked at Classical definition of republic before, but, from my scant knowledge of classics, the most recent version before deletion [1] looks pretty good (well, it seriously needs pruning and thinning down, but there is the core of a decent article on what the Ancient Greeks and Romans meant by the word "republic" - surely a proper topic for an encyclopaedia, I should have thought.)

The problem, it seems to me from the bits I have seen on the Village Pump, is WHEELER's rather forceful reaction to others trying to add their own input. But I don't know enough to comment properly. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both of you sum things up well. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reply to WHEELER's evidence (comment moved from evidence page) and Other Replies to evidence

Wheeler, It's not our job to care about cultural transformations. We're here to encyclopedically cover topics, which primarily means covering them in their current usage. Languages evolve. That may be unfortunate from some perspectives, but it's a fact of life. It's probably a good idea to cover in some fashion what a lot of these terms used to mean, in an appropriate location and type. It is a bad idea to "set anchor" with ancient meanings of things and have our encyclopedia be a guide to seeing the world through a time machine. I appreciate though that your tone is more mild in this note, with no yelling. --Improv 16:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[2]
- Personal attack? It certainly seems intended as one.

Response. "One mans trash is another mans treasure". I have an agenda, but nobody else does. I am the one forcing an agenda, and nobody else is pure as the white driven snow. Or is it really, "The kettle calling the pot black"?WHEELER 14:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[3]
- WHEELER demands that the article Effeminacy (Which he started) deal only with one sense of the word.

Response. How can a word in the classical world, that had NO sexual meaning then be redifened in the modern world as sodomite? or having to do with gender roles? "Gender roles" is a modern construct of marxist/modernist/feminist studies ideology. Then, we take this Marxist/modernist/feminist studies ideology and place it back 2300 years ago and change the meaning of the word? The page effeminacy is original research according to the rules of Wikipedia itself. It proposes a NEW definition of a classical word that is not in the OED. In all actuality, according to Wikipedian policy on original research, the modern definition of effeminacy needs to be put up for deletion!WHEELER 14:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just want to say that User:AndyL is a good guy and Wikipedian. He may have expressed something in the background of all this. But he is a good guy and I appreciate him and others. I do acknowledge my stridency and other failures but classical definition of republic did not need to be deleted.WHEELER 17:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The importance of cultural transformation

Mr. Improv thinks that "cultural transformation" is of no importance to encyclopaedia's. Are we not in a Cultural War now?!?!? The only answer is Yes. Knowledge HAS become political. Socrates and Plato recognized this a long time ago. Knowledge and words are manipulated. That is the unmitigated truth. What impact does this have on Wikipedia? A very big impact. Yet, we all want to run and hide from this fact or just slander Wheeler with being a NPOV and a nonconformist.

Here is the complete reference to Machiavelli:

"He who desires or wishes to reform the condition of a city and wishes that it be accepted and that it be able to maintain itself to everyone's satisfaction is forced to retain at least the shadow of ancient modes so that it might seem to the people that order has not changed—though, in fact, the new orders are completely alien to those of the past. For the universality of men feed as much on appearance as on reality: indeed, in many cases, they are moved more by the things which seem than by those which are....And this much should be observed by all who wish to eliminate an ancient way of life (un antico vivere) in a city and reduce it to a new and free way of life (ridurla a uno vivere nuovo e libero): one ought, since new things alter the minds of men, tosee to it that these alterations retain as much as the ancient as possible; and if the magistrates change from those of old in number, authority, and term of office, they ought at least retain the name. Niccolò Machiavelli

And yet, we want to refuse this methodology exists and then only clamor for "new" and "modern" definitions of terms. Contrary to Snowspinner, Improv and the majority of editors on Wikipedia, there is ongoing cultural transformation and it does affect knowledge and it is political. That is what is behind Antonio Gramsci's theory of Radical Social Change. On my user page I do tell that I am a reactionary. I am DWEM. My POV is the POV of the Christian Classical World. That our definitions and words are not to be allowed on Wikipedia—then, it is not "Free and Open" content.WHEELER 15:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we're refusing to consider that such a method could work, or indeed judging on those methods at all. Rather, it's simply not our job to care. If you really want, you can go start a classics-centric Wikipedia, and have everything defined the way you like. If you do, I hope you will keep contributing here too (although in a less demanding, nonconfrontational way). Classical definitions of things may be quite interesting, and it would be good to have that material covered, but it is not the primary or only good of Wikipedia. I fully recognize that you may be completely correct that there is a cultural transformation going on, with the meaning of various terms eventually being rewritten over time. It simply doesn't matter. If you want to continue your cultural wars, whether you call yourself defending or attacking some side, it would be wonderful if you'd do that elsewhere and keep it off Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you make good content that's not pushing aside other content, and other people are trying to delete it, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll take a look. I can't promise to always be on your side, but I will promise to be fair, as I see it. --Improv 20:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree with you most heartedly. After all the evidence, your stance is "It simply doesn't matter." does not wash. This needs to be considered on Wikipedia and by the all the sysops and admins. It does matter. This needs to be talked about because this is the core of the dispute between me and others. This is one major element. Knowledge is a cultural battlefield. Why the disputes, everything would be peaceful then? In the end, What impact does "Cultural transformation" have on knowledge? It does matter extremely, i.e. effeminacy and classical definition of effeminacy need to be kept seperate, don't you agree?WHEELER 15:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that every editor on Wikipedia gets training in classics or agrees to defer to people who are so trained? That in order to preserve a classics and christian focus for meanings of words, we vigourously keep current meaning of terms out? I don't think that's going to ever happen here. Apart from special-purpose encyclopediae, nobody else is doing that either. If you consider the preference for covering modern meanings, with additional coverage of ancient conceptions of concepts to be selling out, then fine, we're selling out. We're not trying to pretend history doesn't exist, it's just doesn't have primacy. --Improv 17:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't attempt to change the effeminacy article to conform to classical meaning. The classical definition of effeminacy lasted from Classical Antiquity to about 1970. The word had the same meaning for 2300 years! So we now must conform to a "*new*" meaning made up for it in the last thirty years? As is stated above, Machiavelli planned to change the meaning of the word republic while retaining the word. This change wasn't readily accomplished until the French Revolution. So the 2000 year old meaning of the ancients, classics and medieval and Early American period is to be wiped out for a "*new*" meaning created in the last 300 years? No Way. I can turn the tables on you, you are trying to turn this into an encyclopaedia that only accepts only "current usage" terms". And is there such a thing as a "special-purpose" encyclopaedia? Or did you just make that up? That is not why Jimmy Wales started this project. It was for "ALL" knowledge. I take that to mean Old terms and old words.WHEELER 22:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The evidence points that the Category:Classical studies needs special rules and special attention. It is not like other fields. No one studies the Classics anymore. No one reads Werner Jaeger and Edith Hamilton. The computer pages on Wikipedia don't engender as much abuse as the Classics because computers and software are not politically charged. The Classics are a dangerous topic for modern socialist society, ideologues and cultural transformationists such as Fabians. The pages I write are "dangerous" to the sanitized BS that passes for education in the modern schools, colleges and universities of today. They are subversive to today's prevailing orthodoxy. Maybe this is the reason for the trouble I am in?WHEELER 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And then is there a "Secret Policy" amongst Wikipedians that is not "official" Wikipedian policy, i.e. "covering them in their current usage". Where is this official Wikipedian policy? WHEELER 15:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It all comes from being an encyclopedia. --Improv 17:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What kind of encyclopaedia? A Professional one? A sub-standard one? A peoples' encyclopaedia? On what basis Mr. Improv did we come up with "covering them in their current usage"? Is this the policy of the Encyclopaedia Britanica? Is this the standard of "World Book" encyclopaedia? Where did you get this statement from "only current usage"? Please enlighten me—is this your OWN OPINION or is it from a recognized professional encyclopaedia? I would like an answer to this. Where is this quoted from? Or, as I suppose, this was INVENTED? Please do quote for me where this "opinion" or "standard" comes from?WHEELER 22:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As of today, still no response to where "only current usage" is the "professional standard" of this or any other encyclopaedia? Can somebody please document where this comes from and from what encyclopaedic standard does this come from? Please somebody enlighten me? Because I can't find this standard at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines or at Wikipedia:semi-policy. Where is this promulgated?WHEELER 15:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions need to be answered

The role of "Cultural transformation", "radical social change" on knowledge and encyclopaedias? And then what effect and impact on Wikipedia? What's our policy?

Is only things in its "Current usage" official Wikipedian Policy?

Is Wikipedia a "professional encyclopaedia"? If so and if not, what standards are enforced and some are not? Why are some enforced and some not and if we are professional, aren't we to follow all the standards of a professional encyclopaedia. If we are not a professional encyclopaedia, why the enforced standards on composition of articles? Why old meanings and words not included then as a professional encyclopaedia would? What are the standards of a "professional encyclopaedia"? If we are not a professioanl encyclopaedia, what "kind of encyclopaedia" are we and what standards are there for other kinds of encyclopaedias? Or are we just "winging" it and making it up as we go along and then we have "some" standards but not "others" and why and wherewithall are the distinctions? If we are "winging" it what about the rules being made so that only a "certain" type of information will be allowed on Wikipedia? Are the rules such made to include a lot of information but not some minor information?

Where is the policy on that if pages are deleted they can not be external links from other online encyclopaedias? Or is this another "secret" policy that is enforced?

Do the Sysops and Admins and other Wikipedians enforce policy other than what is "official" and promulgated? Is there secret "policies" being enforced at wikipedia?

What is the policy of putting external links on Talk:pages?WHEELER 15:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedian response and policy towards Category:Classical studies? 90% of Wikipedians have no comprehnesion or familiarity of classical antiquity. Should these people be allowed to edit articles in Classical studies and put in "modern" ideas into "classical articles"?WHEELER 15:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Cases in point: Classical definition of republic was deleted. Then SimonP creates mixed government and then creates politeia and then creates Classical republicanism and then melds republicanism to republic and then creates Classical republic. This man is not a classicist because he has three different articles that mean the same thing. A Politeia is a "mixed government" and these two things are a "Classical republic". So it begs the point that this man does not know what he is talking about for classical antiquity.WHEELER 15:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A question for Sam Spade

Sam, would you mind being more explicit in what things relating to the editing process are things that you think W and "his opposition" should make? What policy changes do you propose? This kind of thing has been brought up again and again by some of the members of the community, but so far, apart from the Sangerist perspective, I don't know of any well thought out alternatives to the current way of doing things. As always, people are free to vote with their feet and demonstrate that other systems are at least plausible before committing Wikipedia to changes in a model that so far has worked pretty well. --Improv 17:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Easy, I oppose voting on matters of factual accuracy or NPOV, and especially the idea that such votes are in any way binding or based on some objective standard of truth. The majority is usually wrong, IMO. As far as what WHEELER and his opposition need to do, they need to argue to the issues, not to the person, and increase the level of civility. WHEELER tends to label his opposition as "modernists", and they in turn tend to seek him and his edits out for removal and reversion. Thats simply not helpful. Anyhow, I am not suggesting substantial changes to the wiki process at this juncture, but rather a drastically reduced emphasis on voting, and a much greater emphasis on intellectual rigor and real concensus (i.e. unaminity rather than majority rule). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A question on unanimity -- one of the issues with it is that a lot of the time people are not persuadable by any means, and prefer the status quo over any changes. I'm not sure that a community as big as this one should remain paralyzed because of the need to please every last person, especially if they see every vote as a means to trade power on some other issue. People either will act in bad faith to that end, or will drag their feet for the will of the community. I share your concern that voting can be problematic, but for most areas, I don't see a realistic alternative. As for reverting W's edits, I don't know if that's always a bad thing -- when I see a problem user pushing a POV in one article, I think it's reasonable to look at their other edits and revert them if it's merited. So long as only the attention bar is moved and not the judgement, I think that's fine. I personally have, to my memory, never reverted W, but I can't say that it wouldn't've been unreasonable to do so in some cases. He does produce fine content, but his notion of the primacy of classics leads him to do things that are otherwise unacceptable. If my attention had been drawn to it, I probably would have voted to merge or rename his article on classical definition of republic rather than to simply delete it, but I don't watch VfD much these days. I think that classics has a place, but it's not the foremost place, and that his article had a bad name. "Classical Republic" may have fit the bill. I don't think W needs to be disciplined (yet), but I think he has a major attitude problem, and I don't see such a problem with the people who are bothered by his behavior. If he had a better attitude, I would be willing to support him more often when I think he's produced good content (although he may need my support less in such a situation). As for you Sam, I think it's problematic to call the votes nonbinding. For now, that's the way we do things on Wikipedia, and I don't think there are realistic alternatives for who we are and what we're trying to do here. Votes are of course not meant to decide on what is true -- if that were the case, we wouldn't need to vote! They do, however, determine the will of the community as well as help us get a consensus on what interpretations to put on issues of what is reasonable and what things mean. If you have concrete suggestions on how to handle policy differently, by all means bring them up at the Village Pump. If they're major enough, I suspect people will be skeptical on them and they won't win, because we have a lot to lose at this point if the rules break the community. If you want to make big enough changes, perhaps your ideas will be good enough that they can lead to a fork that picks up momentum of its own. I sometimes get the feeling that you're aiming for big policy changes or to have a successful fork, with the way you take care to greet so many new users and to defend many of the "problem users" of Wikipedia. I can't say I'm against such efforts without knowing in advance what they are, but it is interesting to watch. Hopefully this exchange hasn't gotten too off-topic. --Improv 18:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, but I do find it beneficial to keep an open mind. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the easy answer to calls for unanimity:

"What if X user is a nutter, or objects in bad faith?"

I say such users would be more obvious in a case of unanimity, and much as other consensus based organizations (such as the Quakers or a kibbutz) persons of authority would have a bit of "extra" say, and consistently irascible persons (completely unwilling to change their mind or compromise, and/or consistently shown to be wrong) usually find their way out, with a bit of help if need be ;). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Policy Changes? How about establishing a "Classical Field Board" with Kevin M. Marshal, Stan Shebs and Smoody, (not me) as is seen in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-D#Classics. Let them judge my work. When I have a dispute with User:Mihnea Tudoreanu at Ochlocracywhen he deletes whole sections of work and a work specifically about ochlocracy, I can go to them and they can go to User:Tudoreanu and tell him that what I have put in is perfectly alright.WHEELER 16:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like that idea. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you realize that this is very unlikely to ever happen on Wikipedia because it would represent a major policy change and open the door to all kinds of abuse. Imagine, for example, if edits to all religion-related articles had to be okayed by a board of people from that religion. I'm sure a lot of information, like Billy Graham's anti-semitism, wouldn't be covered on Wikipedia. We are not a classics-centric encyclopedia, and while a lot of the time classical concepts should get good coverage, they don't have primacy over non-classics content. I'm sure it would be a great way to push your ends if we had a "Guardian Council" for classics that would specially manage these things, but it's rare that a topic lies entirely within classics, and also smacks of special privileges. --Improv 15:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to reply to User:Wally on the evidence page. I agree with him. I don't mind editing by other people. What I do mind, is that in the case of the Classical definition of republic, Republics are marked by bicameralism. There is always a 'senate' house. One guy wrote that it can also be unicameral because Nebraska has one. Unicameralism is a sign of democracy not a classical republic. This is what gets under my skin. People break all the time the User talk: WHEELER/Principles of definition. I uphold these principles. I don't mind edits but when people break these principles and try to confuse terms like republic and democracy together, then it becomes a problem. I do get mad.WHEELER 17:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted, such a review board would go against a Foundation principle. Snowspinner 17:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Which? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Number 3. Snowspinner 20:28, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well 1 is a non-sequitor. 3 is a stretch, and would depend on how it worked out. Anyway, WHEELER is allowed to express his opinions about policy proposals, so its not very relevant here and now. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. I didn't mean 1. I put #3, and it interpreted that as markup. That said, my point is that the attitude of "Experts don't get special treatment" is a Foundation principle, and thus particularly non-negotiable. Snowspinner 22:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV as the guiding editorial principle
Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering
The "wiki process" as the final authority on article content
Copyleft licensing of content; in practice, GFDL (working on changes via GFDL 2.0)
Jimbo Wales as ultimate authority on any matter (this is changing; see Arbitration Committee, Board)

I'm sorry, I don't see the part about experts. I do agree there is a great deal of valid criticism about special treatment for experts, especially w the failure of nupedia. See M:Wikipedia needs editors for an interesting (and much earlier) idea. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 06:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That the wiki process is the final authority on article content necessarily rules out an editorial board being the authority. Snowspinner 15:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

That would certainly appear to be your opinion. I should hope you agree it is not a necessary interpretation however. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 05:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Original Research"

On behalf of WHEELER I find this common cry of "original research" to be disheartening. It appears to me that editors who do what should be done, that is cite sources are being labeled in this fashion.

WHEELER personally interviewing Aristotle or Socrates would be original research, citing their works most certainly is not. --Wgfinley 20:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it would be. From Wikipedia:No original research: "Original research is research that produces primary sources or secondary sources." WHEELER's citations of classical authors produces a secondary source, which is not the goal. Snowspinner 20:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

That would be ignoring the rest of the policy "In some cases, where Wikipedia articles make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, Wikipedia articles may be based entirely on primary sources." If you look at his contributions I would believe his contributions meet that criteria in that he cites the position of his sources verbatim without interpretation (Classical definition of effeminacy being a good example). --Wgfinley 23:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree that he is offering no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. For one thing, he's synthesizing ancient writers to make a general classical definition. Aristotle's definition of effeminacy would be one thing. Classical is quite another. Snowspinner 23:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how he's synthesizing anything or creating a secondary source per the policy ("Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data."). His contributions are quite clearly "Aristotle thought this", "Socrates thought this", he's not changing or altering the original text. Creating an article using a variety of primary sources is not synthesizing it, it's presenting the information. I find almost all of his contributions to be quite logically put and statements of his sources. Synthesizing would be saying "what Aristotle was trying to say...." and I don't see anything resembling that in his contributions. --Wgfinley 23:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)