This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi J, if you're ever at a loose end ("I wish! :)"), I came across Javad Nurbakhsh yesterday and added it to category:Sufi psychology. It was in need of citations and reorganization and is now in need of extensive copy editing. Have given it a quick dusting, but maybe you might have a quick look-see sometime, to see if I've been working in the right direction? One problem is getting rid of the intermingling of his two fields: sufism and psychiatry. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 10:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Will have a look. -- JN 466 10:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Content-wise you are doing very nicely, but you need to reformulate your sentences and restructure your paragraphs a bit more. If you use language from a source verbatim, as in the case of the obituary, it has to be placed in quotation marks to mark it as a verbatim quote. It is also best then to attribute it in the text, i.e. "According to his obituary in The Guardian, he had to leave his mother country when "the ayatollahs clamped down on freedom of religion and expression". But it is probably better, in the case of this sentence, to simply reword the ayatollah bit as well, perhaps by referring to the Iranian revolution so you create your own description of the facts gleaned from the article. It is a copyright thing, because Wikipedia texts become fully licensed for re-use by anyone for any purpose; so we mustn't add people's copyrighted work to the public domain, as it were, without their prior agreement. Otherwise, interesting character. I note they all smoke and die of heart attacks. I'll add the article to my watchlist. Cheers, JN 466 10:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification, J. Will have another look. Esowteric ( talk) 10:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, would you sort a bibliography by alphabetical title, or date then title (I only have year to go on)? Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical by author's surname. For an example, see this Featured Article: Frank_Zappa#References JN 466 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. It's a list of books all by the article's subject with title and year -- don't fancy turning that into a detailed bibliography as per Zappa. Esowteric ( talk) 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'd do it by date first then. JN 466 13:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, sorry to hassle you. I've just found that the original prior to my cleanup attempts is reproduced on the Order's site (not sure which came first). So maybe I need to flag a copyright issue? Advice, please. Have added a comment on the discussion page which gives the URL of the web page. Yaaaaaah! Esowteric ( talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or it would require radical pruning back to the obituaries and other refs? I'd be willing to do that. Also, have found the edit difference change to primary source Oct 14 2008. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's been copied verbatim from that website, then yes, it should be rewritten from scratch, and the website cited as a source after each sentence. Sorry. For background, see WP:COPYRIGHT; WP:PLAGIARISM (a new guideline that is currently still disputed); Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing (this is just an essay; it has no binding force, but contains useful ideas). Best, JN 466 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Have carried out a bit of a hatchet job to force a rewrite of any missing detail. Better than having to nominate for deletion, though. Many thanks again, Esowteric ( talk) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My add cites other perfectly acceptable and standardized, community-approved Wikipedia articles. This is the source. I suppose I could stop at a library and find a book that references Galvanic Skin Response and how an ohmmeter works but I probably won't be doing that... -- Ayeroxor ( talk) 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All the ANIs, WQA, CUs, RFC/Us and RFARs are over, I trust. I sincerely thank you for voicing your position on the RFC/U on me. I did not canvass anyone, and in order to avoid any claims that I canvassd, I waited until now (the request to reopen the RFC/U seems dead). Again, many thanks! Collect ( talk) 12:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jay, regarding Human rights in the United States, I copy edited the RfC statement to read: "Should Human rights in the United States include issues such as Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay?" (perhaps a separate RfC can later ask about Katrina etc, after the internal/external issue is agreed). I removed the involved/uninvolved distinction between editors, as people disagreed on the definition of that; and I also removed all threaded comments, and posts about the RfC not being clear. At the time of writing, the section looks like this. I hope those changes are okay with you. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 01:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure my efforts were entirely appreciated though -- when I last looked at the page, people were complaining about it. I've posted an explanation, and hopefully that will be enough. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 08:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, more additions have been made to the Shah family template by an IP. Have left a message on their talk page, though maybe unlikely they'll see it, and have added a line of noinclude text on the template page pointing to the discussion page. Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, have created: Works by Idries Shah and Books by Idries Shah and linked the book articles to 'Books by ...' Chuß, Esowteric ( talk) 12:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense I guess. Though there are not many works that are not books, are there? Mainly the BBC programme; and perhaps some lecture tapes? JN 466 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, Jayen. "Works" is only really in there because that seems to be the structure that others use: you can go straight to books, or to books as a sub cat of works. A book by Tahir Shah, say, belongs to both Books by author and Works by Tahir Shah. Can always be changed.

p.s. Have just come up with the original source of "Arkon Daraul's" description of the nine degrees of initiation in The History of Secret Societies (looks verbatim). Have added it and google book search links to Talk:Idries Shah just for future reference. Esowteric ( talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. As far as I can see, the informational content is a good match, but the verbal formulation seems to be different. JN 466 11:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oriental Magic has just been created. If it's sent for speedy, it looks like James Moore may have to be drafted into the reception section to save the day, unless details can be found for the current sources 8-O Esowteric ( talk) 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the documents that Ricardiana sent is a review of the book: Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Jan., 1958), pp. 59-60 Published by: Oxford University Press JN 466 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, two of the documents. The other is The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Feb., 1958), pp. 255-256, Published by: Association for Asian Studies, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2941480

Suggest you start a reception section based on these reviews. JN 466 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a Further Reading section and added them there for now. JN 466 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, will have a look-see. Sorry, I'd forgotten those references. Sometimes I find reading this stuff really hard going. Esowteric ( talk) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:)) JN 466 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi J, have added to reception, but you may want to give it a look over as I'm not very good at pulling info from reviews and being faithful to the author's words without simply quoting them. Esowteric ( talk) 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. JN 466 20:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead could maybe be shuffled and split into two sentences, beginning with a better description of what the book actually is? Esowteric ( talk) 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

eg: "OM is a study of magical practices in diverse cultures. It was published by Octagon Press in 1956, is still in print,[1] and was the first of Idries Shah's 35 books." Esowteric ( talk) 20:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a comment regarding the above article with User:Cirt, probably one of the best informed people on the subject of Scientology we have. I'm fairly sure that if he joins the discussion of the above article, we should probably likely have some reasonable discussion regarding the subject. John Carter ( talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hope we can resolve the sourcing issues that way. JN 466 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand issues with the media. I know of other articles where the facts reported aren't 100% true, but what's in the article stays there because the true story has never been printed in a WP:RS. I'm sure if I know of a couple, there's hundreds or thousands just like it. At the end of the day though I guess I feel if we're going to treat Jay Severin one way, how much more so should we treat someone hip deep in the Wikipedia system the same way. Once we start bending, where do we stop.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered here. JN 466 19:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but who decides if it's "thoroughly researched"? I've seen what goes on on political articles for example and I don't think it'd be pretty with that door being opened.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not pretty now, either, nor will it ever be. :) That sort of policy wording just moves the front lines a little more towards the more reliable end of the spectrum. Cheers, JN 466 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, I noticed that you mentioned at the AfD, perhaps half-jokingly, that you should write a WikiNews article on Blacketer. Actually, I think that would be a great idea. The errors in the media's reporting of this "controversy" are probably the most shameful thing I've seen in the popular media since the Twitter makes you immoral ho-hum, and anything that can be done to offer an accurate account of what happened would be awesome. rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 23:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was quite serious and will probably get around to it, work permitting. I imagine it would require contacting Cade Metz and some of the other papers for their comments, if we are criticising their reporting. JN 466 00:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[1] I removed all the Wikipedia cited text from the article, and I have provided a longer reason than I did on the edit summary for why I did so. OpenSeven ( talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:DCameron320wi.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 12:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Awarded to Jayen466 by Esowteric for the wonderful and inspired work put into the Sam Blacketer controversy. Esowteric ( talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, thanks Eric! :) JN 466 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: No one can make money from Wikipedia... except me ... Esowteric ( talk) 15:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. One of those articles is just up for deletion. I'll put a note in.-- JN 466 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Check my talk page. I undid deletion of the two pics on the Sam article and received feedback. Esowteric ( talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, thank you. And I see an "experienced user" agrees that the article as it stood was a BLP violation. Ho ho. Thanks for your interesting messages. Btw, you might want to let the guys at [2] know that they're in the news, if no one has beaten you to it. JN 466 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you do that, J? Esowteric ( talk) 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned it in one of my edits on the page, but they were already aware of it on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#So.2C_a_hypothetical_for_the_sake_of_discussion Still, I wasn't, so thanks. JN 466 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466. A recent request for clarification which you were a part of, "Prem Rawat 2", has been archived and can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2. If you still have questions about this case, please feel free to post another clarification request, contact a Clerk, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, I think the nomination for deletion is fundamentally flawed and may even set an unwelcome precedent for some sort of quango manning the doors, who can refuse an article entry simply because "I don't like it", backed up by mates echoing "I don't like it, either." Esowteric | Talk 10:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "navel-gazing" used widely, or are they saying it because Jimbo used those words recently? Esowteric | Talk 10:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure the article has problems. The quango argument unfortunately rarely works; if there is a quango, then saying there is a quango means the quango will deal with you, and if there isn't a quango, then you sideline yourself as a conspiracy theorist. It's best not to go there. :) Cheers, JN 466 11:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jayen466. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I appreciate your tidying my missies. I usually get back around after a bit.....and correct what I see, as you can imagine, I have two or three copy editors following me round keeping it clean. Thank you. Best regards. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 22:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 11:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit troubled by what you wrote here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plagiarism, where you say that

"In the academic sense, each and every good Wikipedia article is plagiarised, since it does not and must not add new thoughts to the debate."

While you (quite aptly) note that WP:NOR means that Wikipedia is not and should not be a publisher of original thought, that does not doom us to an eternity of compulsory plagiarism. Plagiarism has two essential elements. The first is that a writer must reproduce the words and/or ideas of someone else; this is indeed something we are bound to do. The second essential element is that a writer must use those words and ideas without giving credit to the original author.

Where appropriate credit is given (citing appropriate sources for ideas, setting off direct quotations with block indents or quotation marks, etc.) no plagiarism has taken place. Wikipedia can be utterly devoid of original ideas and novel synthesis but still be completely clean of plagiarism. This sort of confusion about terminology and definitions is one of the (many) reasons why we absolutely need the plagiarism guideline. Cheers! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In the academic context, if you deliver a fully cited and fully attributed essay devoid of original thought, it will be classified as plagiaristic and marked accordingly. JN 466 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As for there being no plagiarism if a source has been cited, the disputed guideline takes a different view. It says, even if you cite a source, you should take care that no part of your writing bear a substantial similarity to the writing in the source, unless you use a direct quotation, set off by quotation marks. That is sometimes hard to achieve without ending up misrepresenting the source, or impairing the readability of the text, or sacrificing precision. And it could be argued it is unnecessary to require this. Remember, what is proposed creates additional requirements over and above those defined by copyright considerations. JN 466 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that in an academic context, a Wikipedia article could most closely be compared to a literature review. New research and ideas are not presented, only a thoroughly-referenced and (ideally) unbiased summary of extant knowledge. The fact that we're not writing an essay or a doctoral thesis which aims to advance a particular (possibly-novel) interpretation or argument shouldn't be taken to mean that our work requires and incorporates no original thought. Rather, the creative, novel, transformative, original contribution our writers make is in choosing what material ought to be included, how it ought to be weighted, in what manner and style a topic ought to be presented.

I'm not sure what in my comments your second paragraph is responding to — I stated that appropriate credit must be given, which includes quotations or other clear markings for direct quotations. Appropriate paraphrasing (including an appreciation of the risks of too-close paraphrasing) is a skill that some writers do indeed have trouble with. I hope those editors will respond to guidance and eventually learn how to improve their writing, or at least avoid problematic copying. (I also hope that the plagiarism guideline will be a useful resource to them, offering centralized guidance and the best of our distilled wisdom.) Nevertheless, 'it's too hard' isn't a good enough reason – to my thinking – to neglect our obligations.

From your comment on my talk page, I'm a little concerned that you may be a little too concerned about how zealously restrictions on paraphrasing would be interpreted. If a phrase is unique enough to be worth copying, it probably should be quoted. If a phrase is genuinely nondescript, it should be rewriteable. In general, we shouldn't be directly using other encyclopedia articles as sources for our own work; it's almost certain that other types of source documents would not be appropriate to incorporate as close paraphrases in any case. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe worth a look, I'm not quite sure how to respond, if at all, J: Idries Shah talk page. Chow for now, Esowteric | Talk 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen the second of these posts. I'm not sure that I will respond; the argument, especially bringing in primary sources like Ikbal Ali Shah, is essentially WP:OR or WP:SYN. Beyond that, I believe the secondary sources have it right and Shah's presentation really is different from contemporary "traditionalist" Sufis; not least because he rubbished them. And that's before we get to his wine-making in Langton Green, not insisting on his students converting to Islam, etc. etc. JN 466 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, Esowteric | Talk 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)