User talk:Geofferybard/Cultures of Silence: A Collaborative Perspective

Please list improvements needed.

Idea of this book
The vision behind this book is to establish a collaborative view of the topic delineated by the first post and the body of literature on this specific topic. Starting with Friere and working from there. Please be sure to read the book if adding substantive content, but feel free to do some of the infrastructural tasks even if you feel still somewhat baffled by the concept behind the book. Soon there will be a more comprehensive vision statement for the book from which to work.
 * Restated: Good silence: Monasticism
 * Bad silence: Omerta, government coverup, victim silencing, bottling emotions
 * Does good silence degenerate into bad silence?
 * Case studies
 * Preventive measures
 * Recovering good silence out of bad silence: talk therapy, group therapy, group collective action
 * Conclusion

For some sense of the direction of this book
Please take a look at some of the language in my second book, thank you for your patience. Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How to help out: easy stuff
Removing the and the  around the redlinks will fix that aspect. Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 04:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If not sure what content should be
We can talk here to discuss the conceptual aspects. Certainly there is much need for sxpanding the content each section will be at least one chapter.Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 04:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Harsh wp culture driving out the best and the brightest?
Whoa: Please review/reconsider spod!

In use template means please allow me the opportunity to build the page before you act. As per the text, the Vow of silence is utterly not the same thing as the Practice of silence. Please have some discussion before taking such drastic action! At the very least, please allow me to revert that and userfy.

OK so I have explained why I contest the redirect so it seems I should be permitted to proceed. In my experience, a lot of techies have not much background in this field. I have extensive background in this field. Monastic silence and monastic vows are two separate and distinguishable topics. But I don't want to get into a wheel war with an admin. Please advise.

While awaiting your reply, I review deletion criteria. The reason stated in comment, which is that the article is believed to be duplicate, is not listed on policy as a spod criteria. Thus, it seems that you may wish to template nfd if you don't accept the above rationale to restore or permit restoration. Please note that your silence could be interpreted as consent, but puts me in the untenable position of wheeling. Therefore, I would suggest that it would be courteous to attend to this sooner rather than later. Otherwise, any additional work I might care to do to develope the article is done under threat of another spod, and I don't think you wish that upon anyone.

Bard गीता 04:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article and moved it to User:Geofferybard/Monastic silence. That said, I believe that its topic is so close to the topic of the article Vow of silence that the information could be included in the page itself. (And the page Vow of silence has itself been nominated for merging to the main article Silence.) By the way, a YouTube video is not a good reference; see the guideline on what constitutes a reliable source.

(Should you move the article back to article space, I don't want to be revert warring, either; I'd probably seek advice in the same place.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)



Well I do appreciate you getting back to me but unfortunately my carefully crafted appeal was lost during the crash. Well yeah we can seek uninvolved thir party opinion if need be but for the time being why not let the article develope for a couple few days and then see what it looks like? Believe me this is a vaaast topic and just because one English speaking wikipedian somewhere has been nominated for merger should not constitute a basis to act on Monastic silence, let alone speedy delete. It seems that your point is not wildly unsupportable - it may well be that at this point in the development of wikipedia a consolidation of these two topics might be in order. But it seems that, at minimum, proper process is to recognize that speedy delete is not the protocol. Probably wiki way here is to agree to disagree, take no action on a restoration of the page, with the understanding that if the page is restored you would have the right to nfd (nominate for deletion) at any time. The request would be perhaps that you would allow a stipulated amount of time - be it an hour, or a day, or two - but actually based upon your argument, it seems that I would be lucky to get even one hour before the nfd. I would not be offended if the arrangement is that you would nfd but at least, not spod. Fair enough?

IMO IMHO the merge might work on Vow of silence, for some months, before the topic gets more developed. ( And I do think you have an arguable point at this stage of wikipedia developement, not permanently.)IMO it makes for more clarity in collaborative writing to keep separate things separate. Maybe merge later but not merge for the sake of merging. The articles IMO develope much better if they are allowed to spawn and grow based upon narrowly defined concepts, which was the whole point of starting this artice.

Actually, Silence was a mess - section heading without content, two related sections separated by an off topic section. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silence&action=history I have cleaned it up but IMO it is the exact opposite of merge we need a disambig page with separate pages. I could see Vow of silence as a subsection of a broader topic such as Monastic silence but really, sir, based upon expertise, IMO, Vows of x are more appropriately a subsection of Rites and also a subsection of particular Orders. The Vow is not the master of the Practice.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this may be a textbook case of area expertise interacting with wikipedia expertise - not to say that is a bad thing. Probably the end result of this dialogue is a much better understanding of the disutility that had existed at those pages and the output should be a better final product. Awaiting your OK to proceed as outlined above. Bard गीता 05:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is silence a taboo subject?
OR?