This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
We get some standard, but apparently rather severe, nationalist antiquity frenzy at this article. More eyes are welcome. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
yes -- we need to be clear on the scope of the Egyptians article. There are several possibilities, but the article needs to be clear about it. It cannot announce one thing and then discuss another. The page could also be a disambiguation page between Demographics of Egypt, Ancient Egyptians ( History of Ancient Egypt) and Copts. I am not saying it needs to be that, but these are the {{ main}} articles it needs to accommodate. The "Identity" section I find more at home in an Egyptians article than in Egypt, the article on the country. I created a National identity of Egyptians redirect. This can be a section redirect to wherever the topic is addressed, or even be made a standalone article. The Pharaonism substub probably also needs redirection. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
no improvement yet, responsible user insists on ignoring the issue and (predictably) is trying to politick his way out of it by making noise about "personal attacks". Help, please? -- dab (𒁳) 08:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This page has a habit of claiming the religious beliefs of the Theosoph...anic? sect are true, saying things like "Blavatsky showed that [Theosophanic belief presented as fact]. Wouldn't surprise me if the same didn't apply to all pages on the religion. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is an issue of attribution. For example, in the article Ascension of Jesus, the statement that he physically ascended can only be made in the context of attributing it to the beliefs of a particular religion(s). Arion 3x3 ( talk) 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to check this user's contributions in case free-energy suppression stuff starts to seep in to mainstream science pages. Also, he likes to hide fringe science in paper laundry lists and he is a big fan of listing patents. These things should be resisted.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about an issue I've seen popping up on Kosovo-related articles over the past few weeks. Apparently, Carla del Ponte's upcoming book ( The Hunt: Me and War criminals) alleges that ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo were kidnapping Serbs, killing them, and selling their organs during the Kosovo War. Sources for this allegation range from poor (blogs) to decent (cautious references in CNN, WSJ, etc.).
From my perspective though, there seem to be a few problems with this. First, as far as I can tell, the book is unpublished; Amazon doesn't even list preorder information on the title. Thus, it's impossible for us to independently verify the stories. Leaving aside the blog sources (which, as I understand it, don't count as reliable sources), mainstream news accounts seem sketchy as well. The mostly focus on reports that HRW and other international agencies have sent a letter to Kosovo authorities for explanation. Maybe my google-fu is weak, but I can't seem to find a copy of the letter.
I'm not willing to cry hoax on this. There has to be some traction for this story because it has appeared in major news outlets; but as sensational as the topic appears, I would have expected more coverage. Maybe this can be chalked up to "Western anti-Serb bias", but I'm not sure. It looks to me more like news agencies are reporting the story but hedging in case it doesn't play out.
My biggest concern is that this issue is being used as a big stick with which to beat a number of Kosovo-related articles, in keeping with the on-Wiki pissing contest over the independence declaration. Outside views, both on the story's accuracy as well as on it's relevance, would be welcome. // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody take a look at Dysgenics, as the article seems more and more to be pushing a fringe theory as accepted, mainstream science. Additional eyes are welcome.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:3O might have been a better place for this except for the "two editors only" rule. Basically, the issue is the locus of scholarly consensus on the dating of a famous inscription. It was dated shortly after the discovery, and this dating has been widely popularized; it shows up in many places. However, the dating has been reconsidered by a number of really heavy guns in the field. So this is a conflict between an undeniably popular view and up-to-date expert scholarship, with the latter now being pooh-poohed as WP:UNDUE because a subtext of antiquity frenzy predisposes the naysayers to that early dating. The discussion on the talk page is extensive at this point, unfortunately -- and there may be an edit-war in the offing -- so some guidance and third-party opinion on things like WP:RS and due weight could be helpful. rudra ( talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely bewildered. The greatest disparity in dates could be only 130 years. Judging by the current content of Halmidi inscription there is evidently a genuine debate in academic circles here, albeit that the opinion of the majority looks to favour 450. Put in some compromise wording such as "450 CE" with a footnote saying something like "The date usually given for the inscription, though some scholars favour a later date, a few delaying the date of the inscription until as late as 550. See also Halmidi inscription#Relevant section for more info". Edit-war done and dusted. Moreschi2 ( talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion this discussion on the Kannada literature page started with a valid concern that saying that the Halmidi inscription dates to 450 A.D. without any qualifications or "error bars" is not a good idea. After much, and perhaps inordinate, discussion there now seems to be a general consensus on the talk page that something like what Moreschi suggested above is the way to go (i.e., 4-5 words on the usual date in maintext; add a footnote with other views and references and pipelink to
the detailed dating section).
However the current sticking point is simply whether the maintext should say that the Halmidi inscriptions are usually dated to
5th c/about 5th c/mid 5th c or mid 5th to early 6th c, and I fear that the antipathy that editors have built up towards each other during the lengthy debates over this (and some other ?) article is preventing us from settling this really trivial issue and moving on. Any suggestions ?
Abecedare (
talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
anyone who is at all familiar with dating issues in ancient India knows that it is practically inconceivable to give a date better than within a century's uncertainty. "mid 5th to early 6th century" is already far too precise. It is also irrelevant for the purposes of the Kannada literature article. It is sufficient to state the thing dates to ca. the 5th century and move on. As far as I can see, nobody disagrees with this estimate for the inscriptions date, so I really don't see the problem. As Abecedare points out, this seems to have more to do with animosities between editors than with any factual dispute. Can you please all take a step back, settle for "ca. 5th century" for the Kannada literature article, and take the gory details to Halmidi inscription. I honestly don't see what difference it makes to the topic of Kannada literature whether this inscription dates to 450 or to 550. If the dispute was between 450 BCE and 450 CE, I could see the problem, but "give or take a century" is simply business as usual for any topic of ancient India: there was no historiography in India at the time, and any absolute date will be no more than an educated guess. See also WP:LAME. dab (𒁳) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[1] <- These additions are, quoite frankly, factually untrue. They claim that a study, where the authors admit that they didn't even use control groups for most of the study was a double-blind placebo-controlled study (!) based on some minor, dodgy results in the first part that were sort of placebo controlled, but... well, see Talk:Arsenicum_album#More_info_on_the_human_trial for more on that part. In short, Ullman and Arion are trying to force in their POV, quotemine a barely-notable study, and other such things. God, what do those two have to do in order to get blocked? Switch to supporting mainstream medicine, because all homeopaths are unblockable? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Article on a typical moral guardian that's full of the implicit assumption that he is correct in his views. TV programs he campaigns agains are described as "indecent", without qualifications to say it's in his opinion. [I've done some work to fix this, but it really needs well-sourced criticism to be truly balanced.] The lead paragraph is also problematic. The article isn't awful, by any means - a fair bit of criticism is already included - but it falls into the all-too-easy trap of writing from your subject's side when describing his views. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with User:Ralphyde continually adding very questionable claims about the effects of fasting on the fasting article, and trumpeting his personal success with fasting all over the talk page. His only source is books published by some guy named Joel Fuhrman (who has an article here that I believe needs to be listed on AfD for lack of notability), and he doesn't have any reputable sources to back it up. For example, some of the claims posted are that fasting can treat cancer and serious heart problems, or that it's used medically for detoxifying. None of this is linked to a single peer-reviewed study. There also seem to be strangely be several people, registered accounts and IPs that always come up whenever someone tries to remove those claims or even argue against them. Could be sockpuppeting (Ralphyde and Ralph770 are pretty similar names, and the latter has no contribution history besides backing up Ralphyde in that talk page), but I don't know well enough to know for sure. Thanks for the help. FironDraak ( talk)
Wikidas ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), touting an ISKCON book as "Indology".
See here, and user's talk history (keeps blanking warnings). dab (𒁳) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The author of "Reading in Vedic Literature" is quite manifestly a crank. Some of this really is laugh-out-loud material. Moreschi2 ( talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
this may be a good time to check the eulogy at Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, especially the "Academic presentation" section:
As with the Hindutva crowd, their key claim to "academic recognition" is Klaus Klostermaier. -- dab (𒁳) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
so, I think at this point we can assume it is official that Wikidas knows what he is doing and is gaming the system on purpose. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Satsvarupa dasa Goswami article and discussion history, I see that are some details about "personal improprieties" by Goswami, for which he was sanctioned by ISKCON. User:Wikidas sanitized them from the article (see the "Personal difficulties" section) as well as the talk pages (see Archive 1 + many comments that were deleted from the talk page), even though they were sourced and linked from Goswami's own website ( [2], [3]). I certainly won't be adding back the content to the wikipedia article since at this point it will appear retaliatory, but IMO it is another case where the user could not keep his personal beliefs and preferences off wikipedia, and wikilawyered based on WP:BLP. Abecedare ( talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys, just to make sure to our presentation is based on Madhva comments on the Vedanta sutra (2.1.6), where quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:
ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmārtharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditaḥ purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ
"The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata (which includes the Bhagavad-gītā), Pañcarātra, and the original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature.... The Vaiṣṇava supplements, the Purāṇas, are also Vedic literature." We may also include corollary literatures like the Saṁhitās, as well as the commentaries of the great teachers who have guided the course of Vedic thought for centuries.
Incidentally it was quoted in Goswami, S.D. (1976), Readings in Vedic Literature: The Tradition Speaks for Itself, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, pp. 240 pages, ISBN 0912776889</ref> As reviewed by Dr. T. J. Hopkins of Department of Religious Studies, Franklin and Marshall College
Having indicated my own academic reservations, I must add that I am nonetheless impressed by Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami's presentation. His initial chapter is one of the best statements available on the importance of the guru in transmitting spiritual knowledge, his chapters on "Essential Elements of Vedic Thought," "Vedic Literature-Siddhānta and History," "The Teachings of the Ācāryas," and "Impersonalism Versus Theism" are excellent summaries of devotional theology as found within the Indian religious tradition, and his chapter on "The Vedic Social Philosophy" gives a compelling vision of "the God-centered society."
— T J Hopkins
I do not expect you guys to fully relate to this material, but you have to realize that you should arrive at NPOV here. This is specific and devotional perspective and is based and about Vedic tradition. BTW Bhaktivedanta Book Trust is the biggest publishing house of Vedic literature (of course, if you accept devotional tradition as part of Vedic perspective). There are different views on it, I represent one view and you have a different views, I do not see the problem in it, you seems to have.-- Wikidās ॐ 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The foreword of the book itself starts with the following caveat:
It is only just, in a karmic sense, that an academic scholar be asked to write the foreword for a book that rejects the views of most academic scholars on the historical development of the Vedas. To protect my own academic status (and perhaps incur further bad karma), I should say at the outset that I do not as a scholar accept Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's views on the origin of the Vedas, and I question his use of evidence from the epics and Puranas, which I consider non-Vedic, to prove that these same sources have Vedic authority.
— T. J. Hopkins
and the whole foreword can be read here. Beside that blistering foreword, the book has received no non-ISKCON scholarly review or notice whatsover. I think that should settle the issue on the non-reliability and fringeyness of the source. Abecedare ( talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
so, you quote SDG quoting Madhva, quoting the Vedanta sutra quoting the Bhavishya Purana? Why the hell don't you just quote the Bhavishya Purana, at Bhavishya Purana where the quote will be on topic? The confusion is with the term "Vedic". You use "Vedic" not in the sense of the Four Vedas, but in another sense. There is nothing wrong with that, you just need to keep it on an article where it is on topic ( WP:DAB). So, you may be interested in editing Bhavishya Purana, and you'll be welcome to do that. "devotional tradition" is a respectable topic, and it has its own article, at Bhakti movement. We are just asking you to not mix up Iron Age religion with late medieval religion, but you are of course perfectly welcome to discuss religion in late medieval India at the proper place. dab (𒁳) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
From the back cover:
“Readers, be of good cheer. To those of you who have surveyed in confusion the trackless path of Indian philosophy, this volume offers hope and respite. You are holding in your hands a reasonable and highly readable account of the particulars of Vedic thought.…Read and find enlightenment.”
— Professor Jerry Clack, Department of Classics, Duquesne University
Please understand, Im not pushing for a veiw that is not-acceptable, I just question the basis of your views, as most of them are not as well sourced as you imagine, even if you look at the articles. Wikidās ॐ 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, instead of telling me what Wikipedia is not, why don't you read it for yourself. WP:NOT
Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting.
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.
Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
I do not have a problem in arriving at consensus and accepting what you are claiming to be one of the versions of academic presentation, as long as you do not turn it into place to hold grudges and import personal conflicts. If at any stage I was in that position, I apologize. Vast majority of Vedic pages completely unreferenced, why don't you make it a little more referenced instead of making a 500 year old tradition into a wikifringe? Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, User:Wikidas continues to misrepresent sources to push his POV. In the latest instance User:Ism_schism helpfully dug up the following quote from Gavin Flood on [5]:
Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities who become fused together, namely Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala and Narayana, who in turn all become identified with Vishnu. Put simply, Vasudeva-Krishna and Krishna-Gopala were worshiped by groups generally refered to as Bhagavatas, while Narayana was worshipped by the Pancaratra sect.
Instead of actually reading the text (to which Ism schism even provided a link), Wikidas simply used the quote to cite two tangential claims in Swayam bhagavan and Bhagavata. We have seen similar conduct before with him misciting Radhakrishna and Moore (he now says that he does not accept their views) and Winternitz. Any suggestions on how to stop such disruptive behavior ? Abecedare ( talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. That is most valuable comment from the whole discussion which was for the most of it counterproductive. Wikidās ॐ 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I did a random survey of secondary sources added by User:Wikidas on the Svayam bhagavan (which is almost his solo-creation) and the results are detailed here (also see this and this discussion). To summarize:
Note: I am not even commenting on grammar, tone, POV, UNDUE and OR issues since these are relatively easy to correct. Any ideas on how to undo the damage (do we need to remove all references added by user until verified independently), and prevent further disruption in the future ? Abecedare ( talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have posted my reply on the above. Does it have ANYTHING to do with this board? Wikidās ॐ 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
to be fair, this did turn out to be a case more suited to the WP:RSN. These noticeboards often overlap in scope, and I wonder whether they could be merged beneficially. -- dab (𒁳) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
An apparently bona fide engineer who has now begun "deciphering" cuneiform texts to find out the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dean Radin. To read this article, you'd think this guy was the smartest guy ever to live. Not a hint of the basic issues he has had. Please help. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is interested, FACT NEEDED ( talk · contribs) is a recent incarnation of the "zealous patriot contributing in broken English" type of account, in this case of an Uighur flavour. Nothing urgent. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article has become bloated with original research, unverified information and outright conspiracy theories. Do we have any volunteers who would like to review this article and help improve it? Jehochman Talk 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Kolkhianboy ( talk · contribs), previously a bunch of quite disruptive IPs until I semiprotected all of his favourite articles, is a displaying some worrying tendencies towards ethnic chauvinism of a Laz variety. Laz language has also been affected, possibly others. Nothing massively urgent but something that needs monitoring. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Written from an in-universe (in chiropractic) perspective. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to once again request some additional input at AIDS reappraisal and perhaps some additional eyes on zidovudine as well. A number of recurrent issues have flared up, including whether AIDS denialism is opposed by "the scientific community", or simply "a majority of the scientific community". To avoid this becoming a two-person back-and-forth, I'd like to invite outside input. There are multiple active threads at Talk:AIDS reappraisal started in the past few days. MastCell Talk 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found a new popular outlet for testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism.... articles on ancient warfare!
We have Celtic warfare (and Gaelic warfare), Illyrian warfare, Assyrian warfare, Military history of Iran, Ancient Macedonian army/ Hellenistic armies. Not all these articles are terrible. But they need supervision. It is also clear at a glance that the same nationalisms that give us grief elsewhere result in poorer "Ancient warfare" articles. Unsurprisingly, of course. I can only state my puzzlement over the fact that Ararat arev hasn't given us a glowing account of Armenian warfare yet :) dab (𒁳) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Gaelic Warfare I noticed a while ago that German Wikipedia's section on Celtic Warfare had suffered from someone taking sections of the Europa Barbarorum mod for the game Rome Total War as gospel and faithfully copying them into Wikipedia(!) It appears from references to bronze scale armour that this could also have happened in the English version's Gaelic Warfare section. This isn't 'testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism' however, just extreme naivety. See also Cassi for similar. Paul S ( talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ararat arev doesn't give up. What a loser. The time he invested into wasting ours could have gone into building an extensive website of his own by now. Armenian "antiquity frenzy" tidbits keep turning up all over the place. Recent finds include
btw, why is there a category Category:Greek mythological Amazons and why is it in Category:Eurasian nomads? Creating new categories is far too easy, and we have tons of useless or worse categories nobody ever noticed. We need an efficient approach to deleting and merging such. dab (𒁳) 08:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
re "Greek mythological Amazons", I seem to have traced the idea that there were any non-"Greek mythological" Amazons (which would necessitate the distinction) to Doug Coldwell ( talk · contribs) -- no doubt an excellent editor who in 2007 worked on the topic [18], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
ok, there appear to be a large number of {{ inuniverse}} references to Amazons from Roman historiography. For two years(!) we claimed that Eurypyle "was the leader of an all female expedition against Babylonia. She captured the Amorite capital in 1760 B.C.E." [19], which was linked from Timeline of women in ancient warfare since its inception in Nov 2006 [20]. This is appalling! The "source" we seem to be indebted to for this is Salmonson, Jessica Amanda (1991). The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. ISBN 1-55778-420-5.. This work is cited in dozens of other articles [21]. This Amazon stuff has passed under the radar for too long and needs serious investigation. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just realised as I started to create a new section that this looks like another problem with Ararat arev. Using several IP addresses he's added something to The origins of the Hyksos -- which looks like nonsense to me. Look at the edit history (where he is warring with someone else) and my comments on the talk page. He's non-responsive to my edit summaries but now I understand why. Can the page be semi-protected in some way? I'm not sure what to do with a disruptive editor like this. Thanks.
Ach. There are currently Armenian-antiquity-related edit wars breaking out on Urartu and Hayasa-Azzi, due in no small part to Ararat arev's prior contributions, which our other non-banned Armenian users have picked up on. This needs some attention. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Rudra, look at the History of Iran template! (here -> Template:History_of_Iran) It is from around 4000 BC in their template! Hah!. They have a long list of the cultures, tribes in ancient Iran there, before they arrived, starting from Proto-Elamite civilization in 3200 BC, yes in their template!. Are you saying Persians claim they are that much older? Persian kingdom (Persians) started from 600 BC too, they are putting their ancient history in their template, yes in their template, and you are removing ours. We have our long list of tribes and cultures in Armenia as well, starting from Neolithic, if you read in the History of Armenia section, and than Kuro-Araxes_culture, etc etc...
This is what it says-> "The history of Armenia begins with Neolithic cultures of the South Caucasus, such as the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, followed by the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes and Trialeti cultures." Where is this in our History of Armenia template? Why should History of Iran template have theirs and not us to have ours?? 75.51.172.124 ( talk) 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
calm down. This is Ararat arev, and the recommended course of action is WP:DENY: revert and move on. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently open at Dysgenics, asking whether the article in question devotes too much space to a WP:FRINGE subject. A wider input would be appreciated at the RfC. Thanks!-- Ramdrake ( talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope it helps.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems to suffer badly from US-centrism. Is there any chance we can move this to genetic deterioration and focus on non-human populations, mentioning humans as a marginal special case, and relegate the whole Race and Intelligence stuff to where it belongs? If I want to read up on genetic deterioration, I am not interested in petty squabbling over "race and intelligence" debates in the US culture wars. dab (𒁳) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think? Is it only a few people who think that parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Certain people at Talk:Parapsychology are convinced of this and are not backing down. They reminded me of a proposal I made a while back to add a section to WP:FRINGE about particular attribution. So I was bold and tried out some wording. More eyes are needed both there and at WT:FRINGE#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This website is used in quite a few articles. It's a personal website although with articles by other authors, arguing for Phoenicians in Brazil, Australia, etc (and of course they come from Atlantis). It also calls itself the "Virtual Center for Phoenician Studies" and "Encyclopedia Phoeniciana". I'm trying to do some cleanup. It seems used quite a bit in Carthage for instance. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.. Vassyana ( talk) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get your take on whether UNSC resolutions should be described as binding or non-binding if the aren't taken under Chapter 7 of the UN charter? They are currently described as somewhat non-binding however this contradicts what the UN itself would tell you if you went on a tour of the UN. This originally came to my attention when I saw some changes made to United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 initially the changes described the resolution non-binding because it was not done under chapter 7 of the UN charter. I had reverted this change in that it was unsourced and this was in turn unreverted and an additional section was added as to who believes it to be binding versus who believes it to be non-binding. The way the article stands right now is that it merely states that the resolution wasn't done under binding Chapter 7 of the UN charter. You'll notice on the talk page that I expressed concerns about suggesting that UNSC resolutions are non-binding when the International Court of Justice says that they are binding however the response I received was that the ICJ opinion itself was non binding. Also if you look at UN_Security_Council#Resolutions it says all the above that was added to the UNSC 497 article. Another concern is that the article might be cherry picking scholars or politicians who claim that UNSC resolutions not done under Chapter 7 are non-binding. I posted a concern about using the opinion of Erika De Wet when there is no article about her in Wikipedia so she might not even be notable however I was told here that she is notable. I post the above as much for my own understanding as well as getting accuracy in these articles. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Also, see an excellent comment by an anon on the UNSC 497 talk page. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's what some reliable sources say on the matter:
Long list of sources |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hope that's helpful. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This Security Council Resolution was not taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Resolutions made under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[1] The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, has asserted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding,[2] in its 1971 Namibia non-binding advisory opinion. This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others....In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.[3]
(unindent)I wonder if all of this stems from different definitions of what constitutes a Non-binding resolution. If you look at the wikiarticle for non-binding resolution it defines it as a resolution that cannot pass into law. However, if you look at some discussion that I had with Rudra on his talk page, His understanding is that '"Binding" generally means "UN members are obliged to enforce"'. I wonder if non-chapter 7 resolutions might actually fall under international law but the members are not obliged to enforce them. So in the example above, Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights is illegal under international law due to UNSC 497 however since UNSC 497 was not under chapter 7, the members of the UNSC are not obliged to enforce UNSC 497. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Modified Newtonian dynamics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The current version could be a poster child for the presentation of fringe topics as mainstream alternatives. The eyes and opinions of some physics-savvy people would be appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
User Cadwallader thinks the Barry Fell article is not NPOV. He has heavily edited it, putting in a large section from a self-published web page with claims I have checked in any case and seem to have no weight or evidence behind them. Based on that self-published site, he writes "scientific inquiry proved him correct on the one point where academia had published a critique and defamation of him as a "fraud"." See the talk page where I discuss this. He has also added "The West Virginia Archaeologist, which claims to be a peer reviewed journal, published a few other articles critical of Fell, including one by Edo Nyland, a physics professor, who agreed the inscription was Ogam but translated it in the Basque language as a story about a failed buffalo hunt. Though Oppenheimer and Wirtz were Washington D.C. attorneys with no formal expertise in petroglyphs or ancient scripts, their "expert" rebuttal is still being used to discredit Fell today[5]." Maybe the magazine claims to be peer reviewed, I don't know. What I do know is that Edo Nyland is only quoted in the magazine, he is not the author of an article, and the sentence beginning with 'though' is editorial. Note that Barry Fell himself has no formal expertise in anything but marine biology. I see Til Eulenspiegel has also joined in. I'm not sure where to go from here, but the Pyle stuff should be removed I believe as failing WP:RELIABLE but obviously Til Eulenspiegel and Cadwallader don't see it that way.
User insist on insertion of off-topic (my opinion) material about leftist symbols [23] into this article about Racism in football because, his argument - "it is sourced". Sourced on "Gazeta Polska" a weakly which is called "far right" [24]? and "should not be considered mainstream". [25] . WP:FRINGE? Discussion here [26]. M0RD00R ( talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Controversy surrounding cult-like sub-group of Tibetan Buddhism that claims great antiquity. Spreading over onto Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso and other high-profile pages. Those familiar with the field might be interested in keeping an eye on it. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 09:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not remember this user, and did not note the warning above -- hence a heads up that this user is currently wreaking havoc in the ancient history topics. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with calling prehistoric Africa "Ancient Africa", or prehistoric Australia "Ancient Australia", but the point is WP:CFORK. Since we already have Prehistoric Australia, Ancient Australia should just be a redirect there. Obviously, talking about "Early Middle Ages" in the context of Australia is about as clueless as it gets. I am not holding my breath to see anything useful from Reddi at this point. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is the site of a conflict between a single indefatigable editor who takes the position that centrifugal force is a real, true, and undeniable phenomenon that exists independently of coordinate frames, and every other editor of the page, who report the standard interpretation of centrifugal force supported by all known reliable sources, in which it is regarded as a pseudo-force that can be described in terms of coordinate transformations of the standard Newtonian equations of motion in an inertial frame.
No matter how many other editors explain this to them, they are steadfast in their determination that the WP:TRUTH must prevail. They are impervious to requests that they provide references to support their view. They are impervious to citations to reliable sources, to polite arguments, to mathematical demonstrations of the effects of coordinate transforms, to animated diagrams showing how the motion of objects appears under these transforms, to polite appeals to abide by policies such as Neutral Point of View, verifiability from reliable sources, and avoiding original research.
Instead, they insist that other editors are unintelligent, incapable of properly understanding physics, and are conspiring against them to suppress the WP:TRUTH; indeed, this essay could almost have been written to describe their editing style.
They appear to be intelligent and sincere, but simply unwilling -- in the interests of THE TRUTH -- to engage in the normal Wikipedia processes. Instead, their strategy appears to be to "win" by simply outlasting other participants in the editing process, something in which they have made considerable progress to date. (I have also considered the possibility that they are a knowledgeable person who is simply trolling for kicks, similar to the behavior of one editor in the 0.999... saga, but I prefer to assume good faith.)
Repeated attempts to forge a compromise, using WP:NPOV, have failed to resolve this conflict, largely because they are unwilling to provide supporting cites which might be used to demonstrate that there is a real controversy over this issue in the citable literature.
As a result, the article has become a mish-mash as it is edited to and fro. I am at a loss to see how this process can be resolved. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
wow, looking at User talk:David Tombe, this does seem to be a case of somebody simply Not Getting It, and admin action may be appropriate at this point. The arbcom will just make a bureaucratic mess of this. We have many many competent editors on physics topics, and they're positive angels to clueless blunderers as a rule, and when somebody just keeps going in spite of everyone, they should just run into blocks of escalating lengths. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There's been admin action before, when this user had no user account and edited from many IP accounts [27]. He's repeating similar behavior now but being very careful to avoid 3RR by not reverting, instead just deleting and reinserting material to fit his POV. Be prepared for a multiple-page useless debate if you try to discuss it with him in good faith. I'm at a loss myself on how best to deal with him. I think it would be best if a disinterested 3rd party brought this up for WP:ANI (i.e., someone who hasn't edited those articles recently). Plvekamp ( talk) 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems he's taking a break for awhile. Let's see how long it lasts, the situation may have resolved itself. Plvekamp ( talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
<scratches head> I usually just block disruptive SPAs indefinitely. Don't know about wikibreak, either, he's been busy editing today. Seeing as he's been going for so long under the IPs, he's not a newbie and appears to have been adequately warned. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If this requires administrator intervention, you can also just ask me for help. I haven't done anything with centrifugal force in a very long time. -- SCZenz ( talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid he's at it again: see this diff, where the whole package of ideas is shoved back in again after having been removed for lack of references, complete with an edit comment that says "this has got nothing to do with references." Please also see my most recent comment on the talk page of the editor in question. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the edits in question are coatracking in order to support the theory in this paper [28] in a non-peer reviewed internet journal. The paper claims that inertia is due to centrifugal force in the aether, and much of it is based on the misconceptions contained in the edits this user keeps inserting into the article. Plvekamp ( talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This already had a lot of detail about Fomenko's arguments, now someone has added a huge wodge more which may be OR, certainly seems WP:Undue -- he didn't like my reverting it.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Earlier today I tagged this article for proposed deletion. Since it is pretty fringe, I thought I might as well mention that here. (I considered tagging it for rapid deletion, because a substantial part of the article seems blatant advertising to promote their group, but was not sure if it really qualified.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated both articles for deletion since the only "notability" given for Gray is as the originator of this. Mangoe ( talk) 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The article Dendera light says "As far back as 1894, J. N. Lockyer mentioned in passing the possibilities of lamps.[4" and the footnote is "J. Norman Lockyer, "Dawn of Astronomy". Kessinger Publishing, 1992. 448 pages. ISBN 1564591123 (c.f., "[...] possibility that the electric light was known to the Ancient Egyptians.)" I looked this up. What I found on page 180 of P. 180 [30] Dawn of Astronomy By J. Norman Lockyer was Lockyer suggesting that mirrors were used to illuminate areas where no direct light reached, writing that "in all freshly opened tombs there are no traces whatever of any kind of combusion having taken place, even in the innermost recesses. So strikingly evident is this that my friend M Bouriant, laughingly suggested the possibility that the electric light was known to the ancient Egyptians." Has this been interpreted reasonably in the article and footnote? I suspect the editor obtained the Kolbe quote, which I can't check, from here: [31]. Thanks.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
user:Rokus01 is back, keen to promote all things Aryan as usual, adding alleged Chinese Indo-European origins wherever he can [32] and performing other marvels. Paul B ( talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not know if it has been discussed here, but I noticed the other day that there seems to be a new Hermetism template, which can be seen (for instance) on the Hermetism article, and on the Hermetic Qabalah article. Of course there is nothing (as far as I know) hermetic about Hermetic Qabalah, which owes more to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and to Aleister Crowley, than to any classical source. Also, looking at the Hermeticism article, I see it unites a source in ancient Egypt with the 20th century lunatic Aleister Crowley -- which is complete nonsense. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
User:PetraSchelm has reverted (without prior discussion or consensus) a long-standing, sourced section on "Controversial Research", citing WP:COATRACK:
I'd like to invite discussion from other editors. My own view is that CSA has seen more than its fair share of "controversial" research, in addition to the non-controversial research carried out in the spirit of Kinsey, before the CSA paradigm became powerful as it is today. There is also lots of critical literature outside of the medical field that isn't even mentioned.
In this sense, coatrack does not justify the removal of whole sections, and the way that this was done was less than civil. Lambton T/ C 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this version of the article, I agree some coatracking is going on and that the "Controversial research" section is too lengthy. Some mention of the most notable research is fine, with due discussion and rebuttals: three whole hefty paragraphs is probably not. Make it short and sweet. Certainly, this research is very fringy stuff, and should be dealt with as such. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
ResearchEditor (
talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any "coatracking" here so much as the attempt to over-emphasize the weight of a minority view. So some study interviewed minors on how they feel about being in a "relationship" with adults. The study was heavily criticized as pedophile activism masquerading as science. This is all perfectly on topic in the "child sexual abuse" article, we just need to take care not to allow the article to implicitly jump to conclusions ( WP:SYN), along the lines of "the Stockholm syndrome says some people feel good about being held hostage. Hence, we conclude it is really ok to take hostages or kidnap people." Plus, there is a main article, Rind et al. controversy; details on that should go there. pro-pedophile activism should perhaps be considered a valid sub-article of Child sexual abuse, and the "controversial research" could be accommodated in that context. -- dab (𒁳) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
← PetraSchelm is correct, and dab also stated it very well at 14:55 and 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC). The study was widely debunked and criticized by science and widely quoted by pedophile activists. In the CSA article, a short paragraph about pedophile activisim and the use of Rind et al and maybe Sandfort by activists would be appropriate, with links to the relevant articles. It needs to be done carefully without SYN. There is no controversy about this in scientific research today to report, and to include information in the article that implies there is, would be undue weight for a fringe theory, from the smallest of fringes. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) This may be a silly question — I'm not sure — but how much research really looks into the causal relationships between child sexual abuse and future life problems? I know the correlation is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've just heard, admittedly in nonscholarly sources, the suggestion that the reaction to CSA and the social stigma is at least as damaging as the CSA itself. Is there any solid research on this question? < eleland/ talk edits> 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the reasons that you are having difficulty attracting opinions from "outside" editors is that the barriers to entry are set so high that few of us are likely to want to get involved. First, you have to be prepared to take endless abuse and personal attacks, and this regardless of your views. (And please don't do a "Who, me?" or ask for diffs, or we will all be here forever.) Both sides do it and most, if not all, individuals. Second, the views of any outsider who is not prepared to claim a high degree of professional background in psychology is going to be dismissed, so who would bother taking the time to think about the issues? And those who do claim a professional background are also dismissed by the other side with a level of vitriol that reminds me of domestic-abuse fights.
In order likely only to prove my points, I will make one stab at the issues. The article is about sexual abuse perpetrated against children. Leaving aside that "child" may be defined differently across the world's varied cultures, there are very few jurisdictions where sex with a child is not declared, by definition under the law, to be abuse. I think, from what I am reading here and on the pages of the various articles, that these points are agreed as to stating what is the case. (And we are not here, or in the article, dealing with what should be the case.)
The heavy preponderance of formal studies, broadly accepted in the scientific community, conclude that adults having sex with a child do harm to the child. This would be what I will call here, the "primary conclusion". (No scientific study of which I am aware, and certainly no psychological one, has 100% certainty. The degree of deviance from 100% establishes the amount of weight that should be given to dissenting opinions when discussing the primary conclusions.)
Rind, and others who seem to agree with him, no matter how many of them write and publish, still represent a very small area of dissent from the primary conclusion. (It is not the number of papers that determine the weight of professional opinion, but the weight of the evidence within any study that, gathered with others, determines the validity of the primary conclusion.) Thus, in an article on Rind or his compatriots, or on pro-pedophile views, you can give his studies the significant weight because you are there only discussing the opinions that dissent from the primary conclusion. Child sex abuse is about the primary conclusion, which is that, flatly stated, sex with adults harms children. I would suggest, given the worldwide weight, that Rind and those who agree with Rind, get a single, short, declaratory sentence about the dissent, and a reference that identifies the study. In Related Links, include the Rind article and the pro-pedophile activism one. There is one outside opinion. Enjoy! ៛ Bielle ( talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having problems with the editor who created Oera Linda, and related stubs Irtha. Wr-alda. Frya, Fasta (Frisian) and maybe more. The stubs in my opinion have no justification and should be in the main article, maybe left as redirects, and include his personal opinion as shown in edit summaries such as (for Wr-alda "Look up the Sami god and you'll see it's patently obvious." He's also twice removed my mention of a new article on Oera Linda, I've put it back again, we shall see how long that lasts. I don't want to get into a personal edit war with him.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
From Su vegetarianism:
Su vegetarianism, which some airlines call Asian vegetarian, comes from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. No animal products whatsoever are eaten; su vegetarians also do not eat the fetid vegetables: onion, garlic, scallions, leeks, or shallots.
This diet not only benefits physical health, but also helps to settle the mind as well. Buddhist experience in meditation shows that those who eat the fetid vegetables are prone to restless minds, and have great difficulty making progress in meditation.
Su vegetarianism seems to be a combination of vegetarianism, rooted in Mahayana Buddhism, but the stuff about avoiding "fetid vegetables," is ancient Indian or Chinese folk medicine, not having anything to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. The claims about physical and mental health are also pretty suspect. It might just be a good idea to re-direct it to Buddhist vegetarianism.
Also, since this is English Wikipedia, shouldn't references be in English? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody give this a quick look. I'm having to argue that the mainstream scholarly position and dictionary definition of feminism should be used without attribution and without giving weight to minor/fringe/dissenting ideas in the lead line. As is the norm for the lead lines of articles.
I'm being asked to attribute (that is name drop who says) the clause that "feminism is movement for equal rights for women". This is not something that I think needs to be done in the lead. I'm not necessarily averse to citation in this case but attribution of a view held by the majority of mainstream sources and dictionaries seems unnecessary to me - especially in a lede line, and when the view is cited below in the article's text.
The unattributed use of the mainstream definition is being disputed, by User:Blackworm, because he contends that becuase authors (see these 2 links [43] [44] )have contrary views to the mainstream definition (that is basically the dictionary definition) of feminism this mainstream view cannot be presented without attribution in the lede. I think this objection comes under WP:FRINGE. The mainstream definitions and dictionary definitions all say very similar things to the effect of feminism being a movement for equality. These articles don't show why that common mainstream and dictionary definition needs qualification to the degree asked for.
Now, AFAIK we don't attribute the mainstream and dictionary definition of subjects if that definition is common among the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources and if it is cited in the article. Nor do we need to say this subject "usually is defined" in the lede when the overwhelming majority of definitions present the history of the 'feminism as a movement for equality between mean and women'. Yes there are dissenting opinions about that but we mention them in the article and we don't give it undue weight by putting fringe ideas in the lede.
Below is a collapsed box detailing a very small sample of sources and dictionary defs stating this mainstream view:
Showing a very few samples of sources for this mainstream idea |
---|
|
More, many many more, sources could be added to the collapsed list. (Please check this against google scholar and google books). Hence my position that attribution (name dropping a scholar) of what is the commonly held mainstream definition (as represented in multiple dictionary definitions as well) is unnecessary in the lead sentence - referencing it is of course okay but that's not even usually necessary in the first line of an article as per WP:LEAD and as can be seen by looking at the lead sentences in any article at Wikipedia:Featured_articles.
If you want to see the discussion click here (but it's very long-- Cailil talk 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_is_.22mainstream.3F.22 could use some views of people on the front lines. When people are cheerfully saying that all the articles need is a few people to go in and sort things out, then, clearly, they have never attempted to sort out any alternative medicine article. At the moment, the article on Radionics - a form of witchdoctory where a bit of hair or blood is put into a machine to allow distant practitioners to send healthy vibes at you - is full of nothing but glowing praise, for instance, and this is true of 90% of alternative and complementary medicines. Homeopathy required many years of work to get to the state it's in - and is now at Arbcom. 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk • contribs)
Prem Rawat is the Indian-born head of a spritual movement. He was once known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and led the Divine Light Mission. He and his movement were the subject of numerous scholarly and journalistic articles during their heyday. One scholar's book has been accused of making exceptional claims, trigering WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so in addition to deciding that the claims are exceptional we need to decide that the source is not a "high-quality reliable source". The debate is at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. As currently drafted, the assertions of Jan van der Lans are summarized thus:
The specific objections are "that he's a charlatan leading a double life" and that "his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders". FWIW, everyone agrees that the subject led a life of luxury and opulence.
To rebut the assertion that these are exceptional claims, I've done research on news clippings from the era, and find that these claims are confirmed by comments from friends, family, and associates (some ofthem estranged).
In light of this information, is it reasonable to say that van der Lans represents a fringe viewpoint, and that his scholarly research makes exceptional claims, or are his assertions consistent with statements by other parties, meaning that they are not exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(What this was placed in this noticeboard? The correct noticeboard seems to be
Wikipedia:V/N.)
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 01:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Schnabel points to a difference in appreciation between northern America, the eastern world and Europe ( p 104):
Voorts mag worden opgemerkt, dat de meeste nieuwe religieuze bewegingen Nederland hebben bereikt via de Verenigde Staten en beïnvloed zijn door de ‘zucht naar rijkdom’, waarvan De Tocqueville (1971 (1840), 206) al tot zijn verbazing moest vaststellen dat die ‘bij de Amerikanen dus geenszins in een kwade reuk staat, ja zelfs bewonderd wordt...’. De ambivalente houding ten opzichte van geld, die de Europeaan kenmerkt, is in Amerika en ook in het Oosten vrijwel geheel afwezig. In de Verenigde Staten wordt geld duidelijk als een positief bewijs en als een symbool van het eigen maatschappelijk succes beleefd. Een kwantitatieve verandering leidt hier zonder twijfel tot een kwalitatieve omslag. Wie arm is, heeft dat aan zichzelf te wijten: wie rijk is heeft dat aan zichzelf te danken. In India denkt men daar misschien wat genuanceerder over, maar ook daar geldt dat het bezit van geld zeker geen schande is en ook geen gevoel van schuld geeft in de confrontatie met de armoede rondom. Rijkdom is altijd verdiend. Het ideaal van de Indiase ascese is dan ook niet het in armoe leven op zich, maar het verzaken van de wereld: het loslaten van dat wat men heeft, nadat men zijn maatschappelijke verplichtingen heeft vervuld. Arm zijn is op zich geen verdienste, en de armen is ook zeker niet meer het rijk der hemelen dan de rijken. |
(summary:) Schnabel points out that in the US (and the East but with more nuance there) richess is seen as a positive sign; In Europe (with the Netherlands as an example), money has a "bad odour", in general - or: Europeans have an ambivalent attitude w.r.t. richess. |
A bit simplistic, but this is more or less the picture: in Europe a religious leader would cross a line from the moment he lives in luxury, or alternatively when he teaches something different as to what he applies to himself (for this point see Schnabel p 101, this makes a charismatic leader a fraud/"bedrieger"); the US has more tolerance in that respect: neither does affluence in and by itself, nor the charismatic leader putting himself apart from the flock carry a necessary connotation of condemnation. There, affluence is admired; "fraud" would only apply when appropriating money in mischievous ways, etc.
For all Dutch authors from the early 1980s we've been considering regarding Rawat (Haan, Van der Lans, Kranenborg, Lammers, Schnabel,...) there's no doubt, Rawat crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed (in a European perspective) - that is the mainstream opinion there; For US/northern American authors of roughly the same period the mainstream opinion is that he's a quite successful religious leader, and that accusations from former adherents and disgraced family members are "fringe".
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion originated at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. Maybe it's time to take it back there.
In the mean while Jayen provided a context analysis there ( Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#van der Lans: context - "The text on Andries' page was essentially correct ...") – the apparent context being a fairly standard description of disciple-guru relationship, as pointed out by Jossi.
Is anyone still contending a REDFLAG re. Van der Lans? In other words, can we get rid of ( Criticism of Prem Rawat#Observations from scholars):
Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health<ref> KSGV: Objectives<br>"Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."</ref>. Van der Lans wrote that...
... and replace it by:
Jan van der Lans, a Dutch professor of psychology of religion wrote in 1981...
? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Mista-X ( talk · contribs) is going about claiming that Joseph Stalin had nothing to do with the assassination of Leon Trotsky. He does so by claiming there is "no evidence", though of course there is, and even the Soviet government acknowledged as much in the late 1980's. Mista-X has done this in the past, and been blocked for it, and he's at it again. I'd like extra eyes on the following articles, if possible:
It would be nice if we keep Wikipedia at least as honest about Soviet history as the Soviet textbooks themselves were. MastCell Talk 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I had tagged this article [46], but another editor who apparently thinks the article is well sourced and reasonable just removed the tag. last week I was able to get two forks from this article speedy deleted, on the grounds of blatant advertising, but I suppose they will soon be back...if they are not already. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
{unindent)It's fringe, so it's discussion is appropriate here. Andries is the (re)creator of the Share International article. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm Schosha, I am still convinced that you are off-topic here. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_about_scope_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard. Andries ( talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that Share International has been nominated for deletion [49]. Anyone interested in the Benjamin Creme discussion (above), and on the talk page, might want to take a look and comment. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please watchlist NAET and Energy medicine, I just got these to some vague semblence of NPOV and Verifiability, and, well. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Those of us who regularly watch this page are quick to spot pseudoscience and label it as such. We are much slower off the mark as to pseudohistory (Probably more scientists watch this page than historians). In any case, a slow boil edit war (ie it changes back and forth about once a month) is going on at the article on Robert Lomas, the author of "The Hyram Key" (basic premise for those not familiar with the book: The ancient Egyptians had ritual certain practices; The early Christians in Jerusalem followed these practices, and by the way Jesus did not die on the cross; Suppose they hid documents to this effect in the ruins of the Temple. The Knights Templars are said to have found something in the ruins of the Temple, therefore what they found were these documents. Since the Freemasons might be descendants of the Templars, the Masons are directly connected to the Ancient Egyptians.) To me this has so many suppositions and conjectures that it can only be called pseudohistory. However, attepts to categorize Lomas as a pseudohistorian and his label his work as pseudohistory are reverted. Note... the book was a best seller and helped inspire The DaVinci Code... so it is notable. Those of us arguing to call it pseudohistory are not attempting to delete the article... only to make it clear that this is not history. Some assistance by those who care about historical Fringe Theories is needed. Blueboar ( talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Cassi article blithely states By the 1st C AD, the Cassi had become known as the Catuvellauni (“Battle Superiors”). and cites Daithi O Hogan's "The Celts: A History" as its source. The first problem is that this seems pure conjecture based on the name Cassivellaunus and the second is that I understand O Hogan is a folklorist rather than a historian and that his book has had some pretty savage reviews. Does anyone know any more? Paul S ( talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And Catuvellauni “Battle Superiors” -- Google books shows up only Daithi O’Hogain, and Google scholar, nothing. And although I have nothing against Daithi O’Hogain, if he is the sole source, something seems wrong.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A new anon 189.48.107.245 ( talk · contribs · count) has arrived and posted the same lengthy and fairly incoherent discussion of Heisenberg: Heisenberg's scientific criterion on various talk pages touching on the philosophy and history of science. Does anyone know whether it's proper to just delete this material rather than keep it cluttering up the pages? -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Some sort of fringey massage, written almost entirely from promotional sources. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Added cites for science research. SmithBlue ( talk) 05:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC) And please strive for more accuracy with your template's reasons for deletion. Making mistakes like claiming Myss, Caroline (1997). Why People Don't Heal and How They Can. Harmony Books. ISBN 0-60960-090-7 is not an RS on Medical Intuituive when WP:NPOV clearly states "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them", and Myss' books are the "bibles" of MI, just makes all skeptics look like stupid biased fools. You want an accurate encyclopaedia? - well you model accuracy first. Throwing templates around as on Feldenkrais and Rolfing just makes skeptics look like ill-informed fundamentalist apologists for the mainstream partyline. Skeptics need to be respected for their reasoning not for blind rejection of the new or differrent. SmithBlue ( talk) 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could get this made NPOV, etc. Then we could upmerge some of the tiny-altmed to it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Written like an advertisement [in parts] - I've removed the worst bits, but it really needs an expert to check it over. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an article that has recently been completely rewritten by one editor. There seem to be some problems with it, including that it mostly discusses energy healing, a subject not necessarily indicated by its name and introduction. I would appreciate it if some editors would take a look at it; because, perhaps, my uneasiness about it is unjustified. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
" Prana and Qi (among others)" have their own articles. The article is pure WP:SYN. Unless an identifiable concept of "spiritual energy" can be referenced to some RS, I suggest this page should be a disambiguation page, or redirect to Energy (disambiguation). You cannot google "energy" and then cobble together the results into a single article. "Energy" is too common a word for that. dab (𒁳) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Taking the suggestion of Itsmejudith, I have been looking through some of the earliest versions of the article. Of the one I have so far looked at this one [54] seems the most balanced and neutral. Perhaps going back to this version would be a good new start for the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
case in point, actus is also "spiritual energy" (energeia), but far from being a topic of soft-headed esotericist blather, it is a perfectly respectable topic in philosophy. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
We get some standard, but apparently rather severe, nationalist antiquity frenzy at this article. More eyes are welcome. dab (𒁳) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
yes -- we need to be clear on the scope of the Egyptians article. There are several possibilities, but the article needs to be clear about it. It cannot announce one thing and then discuss another. The page could also be a disambiguation page between Demographics of Egypt, Ancient Egyptians ( History of Ancient Egypt) and Copts. I am not saying it needs to be that, but these are the {{ main}} articles it needs to accommodate. The "Identity" section I find more at home in an Egyptians article than in Egypt, the article on the country. I created a National identity of Egyptians redirect. This can be a section redirect to wherever the topic is addressed, or even be made a standalone article. The Pharaonism substub probably also needs redirection. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
no improvement yet, responsible user insists on ignoring the issue and (predictably) is trying to politick his way out of it by making noise about "personal attacks". Help, please? -- dab (𒁳) 08:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This page has a habit of claiming the religious beliefs of the Theosoph...anic? sect are true, saying things like "Blavatsky showed that [Theosophanic belief presented as fact]. Wouldn't surprise me if the same didn't apply to all pages on the religion. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is an issue of attribution. For example, in the article Ascension of Jesus, the statement that he physically ascended can only be made in the context of attributing it to the beliefs of a particular religion(s). Arion 3x3 ( talk) 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to check this user's contributions in case free-energy suppression stuff starts to seep in to mainstream science pages. Also, he likes to hide fringe science in paper laundry lists and he is a big fan of listing patents. These things should be resisted.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about an issue I've seen popping up on Kosovo-related articles over the past few weeks. Apparently, Carla del Ponte's upcoming book ( The Hunt: Me and War criminals) alleges that ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo were kidnapping Serbs, killing them, and selling their organs during the Kosovo War. Sources for this allegation range from poor (blogs) to decent (cautious references in CNN, WSJ, etc.).
From my perspective though, there seem to be a few problems with this. First, as far as I can tell, the book is unpublished; Amazon doesn't even list preorder information on the title. Thus, it's impossible for us to independently verify the stories. Leaving aside the blog sources (which, as I understand it, don't count as reliable sources), mainstream news accounts seem sketchy as well. The mostly focus on reports that HRW and other international agencies have sent a letter to Kosovo authorities for explanation. Maybe my google-fu is weak, but I can't seem to find a copy of the letter.
I'm not willing to cry hoax on this. There has to be some traction for this story because it has appeared in major news outlets; but as sensational as the topic appears, I would have expected more coverage. Maybe this can be chalked up to "Western anti-Serb bias", but I'm not sure. It looks to me more like news agencies are reporting the story but hedging in case it doesn't play out.
My biggest concern is that this issue is being used as a big stick with which to beat a number of Kosovo-related articles, in keeping with the on-Wiki pissing contest over the independence declaration. Outside views, both on the story's accuracy as well as on it's relevance, would be welcome. // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody take a look at Dysgenics, as the article seems more and more to be pushing a fringe theory as accepted, mainstream science. Additional eyes are welcome.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 12:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:3O might have been a better place for this except for the "two editors only" rule. Basically, the issue is the locus of scholarly consensus on the dating of a famous inscription. It was dated shortly after the discovery, and this dating has been widely popularized; it shows up in many places. However, the dating has been reconsidered by a number of really heavy guns in the field. So this is a conflict between an undeniably popular view and up-to-date expert scholarship, with the latter now being pooh-poohed as WP:UNDUE because a subtext of antiquity frenzy predisposes the naysayers to that early dating. The discussion on the talk page is extensive at this point, unfortunately -- and there may be an edit-war in the offing -- so some guidance and third-party opinion on things like WP:RS and due weight could be helpful. rudra ( talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely bewildered. The greatest disparity in dates could be only 130 years. Judging by the current content of Halmidi inscription there is evidently a genuine debate in academic circles here, albeit that the opinion of the majority looks to favour 450. Put in some compromise wording such as "450 CE" with a footnote saying something like "The date usually given for the inscription, though some scholars favour a later date, a few delaying the date of the inscription until as late as 550. See also Halmidi inscription#Relevant section for more info". Edit-war done and dusted. Moreschi2 ( talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion this discussion on the Kannada literature page started with a valid concern that saying that the Halmidi inscription dates to 450 A.D. without any qualifications or "error bars" is not a good idea. After much, and perhaps inordinate, discussion there now seems to be a general consensus on the talk page that something like what Moreschi suggested above is the way to go (i.e., 4-5 words on the usual date in maintext; add a footnote with other views and references and pipelink to
the detailed dating section).
However the current sticking point is simply whether the maintext should say that the Halmidi inscriptions are usually dated to
5th c/about 5th c/mid 5th c or mid 5th to early 6th c, and I fear that the antipathy that editors have built up towards each other during the lengthy debates over this (and some other ?) article is preventing us from settling this really trivial issue and moving on. Any suggestions ?
Abecedare (
talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
anyone who is at all familiar with dating issues in ancient India knows that it is practically inconceivable to give a date better than within a century's uncertainty. "mid 5th to early 6th century" is already far too precise. It is also irrelevant for the purposes of the Kannada literature article. It is sufficient to state the thing dates to ca. the 5th century and move on. As far as I can see, nobody disagrees with this estimate for the inscriptions date, so I really don't see the problem. As Abecedare points out, this seems to have more to do with animosities between editors than with any factual dispute. Can you please all take a step back, settle for "ca. 5th century" for the Kannada literature article, and take the gory details to Halmidi inscription. I honestly don't see what difference it makes to the topic of Kannada literature whether this inscription dates to 450 or to 550. If the dispute was between 450 BCE and 450 CE, I could see the problem, but "give or take a century" is simply business as usual for any topic of ancient India: there was no historiography in India at the time, and any absolute date will be no more than an educated guess. See also WP:LAME. dab (𒁳) 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[1] <- These additions are, quoite frankly, factually untrue. They claim that a study, where the authors admit that they didn't even use control groups for most of the study was a double-blind placebo-controlled study (!) based on some minor, dodgy results in the first part that were sort of placebo controlled, but... well, see Talk:Arsenicum_album#More_info_on_the_human_trial for more on that part. In short, Ullman and Arion are trying to force in their POV, quotemine a barely-notable study, and other such things. God, what do those two have to do in order to get blocked? Switch to supporting mainstream medicine, because all homeopaths are unblockable? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Article on a typical moral guardian that's full of the implicit assumption that he is correct in his views. TV programs he campaigns agains are described as "indecent", without qualifications to say it's in his opinion. [I've done some work to fix this, but it really needs well-sourced criticism to be truly balanced.] The lead paragraph is also problematic. The article isn't awful, by any means - a fair bit of criticism is already included - but it falls into the all-too-easy trap of writing from your subject's side when describing his views. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with User:Ralphyde continually adding very questionable claims about the effects of fasting on the fasting article, and trumpeting his personal success with fasting all over the talk page. His only source is books published by some guy named Joel Fuhrman (who has an article here that I believe needs to be listed on AfD for lack of notability), and he doesn't have any reputable sources to back it up. For example, some of the claims posted are that fasting can treat cancer and serious heart problems, or that it's used medically for detoxifying. None of this is linked to a single peer-reviewed study. There also seem to be strangely be several people, registered accounts and IPs that always come up whenever someone tries to remove those claims or even argue against them. Could be sockpuppeting (Ralphyde and Ralph770 are pretty similar names, and the latter has no contribution history besides backing up Ralphyde in that talk page), but I don't know well enough to know for sure. Thanks for the help. FironDraak ( talk)
Wikidas ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), touting an ISKCON book as "Indology".
See here, and user's talk history (keeps blanking warnings). dab (𒁳) 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The author of "Reading in Vedic Literature" is quite manifestly a crank. Some of this really is laugh-out-loud material. Moreschi2 ( talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
this may be a good time to check the eulogy at Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, especially the "Academic presentation" section:
As with the Hindutva crowd, their key claim to "academic recognition" is Klaus Klostermaier. -- dab (𒁳) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
so, I think at this point we can assume it is official that Wikidas knows what he is doing and is gaming the system on purpose. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the Satsvarupa dasa Goswami article and discussion history, I see that are some details about "personal improprieties" by Goswami, for which he was sanctioned by ISKCON. User:Wikidas sanitized them from the article (see the "Personal difficulties" section) as well as the talk pages (see Archive 1 + many comments that were deleted from the talk page), even though they were sourced and linked from Goswami's own website ( [2], [3]). I certainly won't be adding back the content to the wikipedia article since at this point it will appear retaliatory, but IMO it is another case where the user could not keep his personal beliefs and preferences off wikipedia, and wikilawyered based on WP:BLP. Abecedare ( talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys, just to make sure to our presentation is based on Madhva comments on the Vedanta sutra (2.1.6), where quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:
ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmārtharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditaḥ purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ
"The Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata (which includes the Bhagavad-gītā), Pañcarātra, and the original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature.... The Vaiṣṇava supplements, the Purāṇas, are also Vedic literature." We may also include corollary literatures like the Saṁhitās, as well as the commentaries of the great teachers who have guided the course of Vedic thought for centuries.
Incidentally it was quoted in Goswami, S.D. (1976), Readings in Vedic Literature: The Tradition Speaks for Itself, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, pp. 240 pages, ISBN 0912776889</ref> As reviewed by Dr. T. J. Hopkins of Department of Religious Studies, Franklin and Marshall College
Having indicated my own academic reservations, I must add that I am nonetheless impressed by Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami's presentation. His initial chapter is one of the best statements available on the importance of the guru in transmitting spiritual knowledge, his chapters on "Essential Elements of Vedic Thought," "Vedic Literature-Siddhānta and History," "The Teachings of the Ācāryas," and "Impersonalism Versus Theism" are excellent summaries of devotional theology as found within the Indian religious tradition, and his chapter on "The Vedic Social Philosophy" gives a compelling vision of "the God-centered society."
— T J Hopkins
I do not expect you guys to fully relate to this material, but you have to realize that you should arrive at NPOV here. This is specific and devotional perspective and is based and about Vedic tradition. BTW Bhaktivedanta Book Trust is the biggest publishing house of Vedic literature (of course, if you accept devotional tradition as part of Vedic perspective). There are different views on it, I represent one view and you have a different views, I do not see the problem in it, you seems to have.-- Wikidās ॐ 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The foreword of the book itself starts with the following caveat:
It is only just, in a karmic sense, that an academic scholar be asked to write the foreword for a book that rejects the views of most academic scholars on the historical development of the Vedas. To protect my own academic status (and perhaps incur further bad karma), I should say at the outset that I do not as a scholar accept Satsvarupa dasa Goswami's views on the origin of the Vedas, and I question his use of evidence from the epics and Puranas, which I consider non-Vedic, to prove that these same sources have Vedic authority.
— T. J. Hopkins
and the whole foreword can be read here. Beside that blistering foreword, the book has received no non-ISKCON scholarly review or notice whatsover. I think that should settle the issue on the non-reliability and fringeyness of the source. Abecedare ( talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
so, you quote SDG quoting Madhva, quoting the Vedanta sutra quoting the Bhavishya Purana? Why the hell don't you just quote the Bhavishya Purana, at Bhavishya Purana where the quote will be on topic? The confusion is with the term "Vedic". You use "Vedic" not in the sense of the Four Vedas, but in another sense. There is nothing wrong with that, you just need to keep it on an article where it is on topic ( WP:DAB). So, you may be interested in editing Bhavishya Purana, and you'll be welcome to do that. "devotional tradition" is a respectable topic, and it has its own article, at Bhakti movement. We are just asking you to not mix up Iron Age religion with late medieval religion, but you are of course perfectly welcome to discuss religion in late medieval India at the proper place. dab (𒁳) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
From the back cover:
“Readers, be of good cheer. To those of you who have surveyed in confusion the trackless path of Indian philosophy, this volume offers hope and respite. You are holding in your hands a reasonable and highly readable account of the particulars of Vedic thought.…Read and find enlightenment.”
— Professor Jerry Clack, Department of Classics, Duquesne University
Please understand, Im not pushing for a veiw that is not-acceptable, I just question the basis of your views, as most of them are not as well sourced as you imagine, even if you look at the articles. Wikidās ॐ 07:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, instead of telling me what Wikipedia is not, why don't you read it for yourself. WP:NOT
Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting.
Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.
Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.
I do not have a problem in arriving at consensus and accepting what you are claiming to be one of the versions of academic presentation, as long as you do not turn it into place to hold grudges and import personal conflicts. If at any stage I was in that position, I apologize. Vast majority of Vedic pages completely unreferenced, why don't you make it a little more referenced instead of making a 500 year old tradition into a wikifringe? Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, User:Wikidas continues to misrepresent sources to push his POV. In the latest instance User:Ism_schism helpfully dug up the following quote from Gavin Flood on [5]:
Early Vaishnava worship focuses on three deities who become fused together, namely Vasudeva-Krishna, Krishna-Gopala and Narayana, who in turn all become identified with Vishnu. Put simply, Vasudeva-Krishna and Krishna-Gopala were worshiped by groups generally refered to as Bhagavatas, while Narayana was worshipped by the Pancaratra sect.
Instead of actually reading the text (to which Ism schism even provided a link), Wikidas simply used the quote to cite two tangential claims in Swayam bhagavan and Bhagavata. We have seen similar conduct before with him misciting Radhakrishna and Moore (he now says that he does not accept their views) and Winternitz. Any suggestions on how to stop such disruptive behavior ? Abecedare ( talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. That is most valuable comment from the whole discussion which was for the most of it counterproductive. Wikidās ॐ 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I did a random survey of secondary sources added by User:Wikidas on the Svayam bhagavan (which is almost his solo-creation) and the results are detailed here (also see this and this discussion). To summarize:
Note: I am not even commenting on grammar, tone, POV, UNDUE and OR issues since these are relatively easy to correct. Any ideas on how to undo the damage (do we need to remove all references added by user until verified independently), and prevent further disruption in the future ? Abecedare ( talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have posted my reply on the above. Does it have ANYTHING to do with this board? Wikidās ॐ 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
to be fair, this did turn out to be a case more suited to the WP:RSN. These noticeboards often overlap in scope, and I wonder whether they could be merged beneficially. -- dab (𒁳) 10:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
An apparently bona fide engineer who has now begun "deciphering" cuneiform texts to find out the truth about Sodom and Gomorrah. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dean Radin. To read this article, you'd think this guy was the smartest guy ever to live. Not a hint of the basic issues he has had. Please help. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is interested, FACT NEEDED ( talk · contribs) is a recent incarnation of the "zealous patriot contributing in broken English" type of account, in this case of an Uighur flavour. Nothing urgent. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article has become bloated with original research, unverified information and outright conspiracy theories. Do we have any volunteers who would like to review this article and help improve it? Jehochman Talk 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Kolkhianboy ( talk · contribs), previously a bunch of quite disruptive IPs until I semiprotected all of his favourite articles, is a displaying some worrying tendencies towards ethnic chauvinism of a Laz variety. Laz language has also been affected, possibly others. Nothing massively urgent but something that needs monitoring. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 11:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Written from an in-universe (in chiropractic) perspective. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to once again request some additional input at AIDS reappraisal and perhaps some additional eyes on zidovudine as well. A number of recurrent issues have flared up, including whether AIDS denialism is opposed by "the scientific community", or simply "a majority of the scientific community". To avoid this becoming a two-person back-and-forth, I'd like to invite outside input. There are multiple active threads at Talk:AIDS reappraisal started in the past few days. MastCell Talk 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found a new popular outlet for testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism.... articles on ancient warfare!
We have Celtic warfare (and Gaelic warfare), Illyrian warfare, Assyrian warfare, Military history of Iran, Ancient Macedonian army/ Hellenistic armies. Not all these articles are terrible. But they need supervision. It is also clear at a glance that the same nationalisms that give us grief elsewhere result in poorer "Ancient warfare" articles. Unsurprisingly, of course. I can only state my puzzlement over the fact that Ararat arev hasn't given us a glowing account of Armenian warfare yet :) dab (𒁳) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Gaelic Warfare I noticed a while ago that German Wikipedia's section on Celtic Warfare had suffered from someone taking sections of the Europa Barbarorum mod for the game Rome Total War as gospel and faithfully copying them into Wikipedia(!) It appears from references to bronze scale armour that this could also have happened in the English version's Gaelic Warfare section. This isn't 'testosterone-imbued ethnic nationalism' however, just extreme naivety. See also Cassi for similar. Paul S ( talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ararat arev doesn't give up. What a loser. The time he invested into wasting ours could have gone into building an extensive website of his own by now. Armenian "antiquity frenzy" tidbits keep turning up all over the place. Recent finds include
btw, why is there a category Category:Greek mythological Amazons and why is it in Category:Eurasian nomads? Creating new categories is far too easy, and we have tons of useless or worse categories nobody ever noticed. We need an efficient approach to deleting and merging such. dab (𒁳) 08:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
re "Greek mythological Amazons", I seem to have traced the idea that there were any non-"Greek mythological" Amazons (which would necessitate the distinction) to Doug Coldwell ( talk · contribs) -- no doubt an excellent editor who in 2007 worked on the topic [18], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
ok, there appear to be a large number of {{ inuniverse}} references to Amazons from Roman historiography. For two years(!) we claimed that Eurypyle "was the leader of an all female expedition against Babylonia. She captured the Amorite capital in 1760 B.C.E." [19], which was linked from Timeline of women in ancient warfare since its inception in Nov 2006 [20]. This is appalling! The "source" we seem to be indebted to for this is Salmonson, Jessica Amanda (1991). The Encyclopedia of Amazons. Paragon House. ISBN 1-55778-420-5.. This work is cited in dozens of other articles [21]. This Amazon stuff has passed under the radar for too long and needs serious investigation. dab (𒁳) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just realised as I started to create a new section that this looks like another problem with Ararat arev. Using several IP addresses he's added something to The origins of the Hyksos -- which looks like nonsense to me. Look at the edit history (where he is warring with someone else) and my comments on the talk page. He's non-responsive to my edit summaries but now I understand why. Can the page be semi-protected in some way? I'm not sure what to do with a disruptive editor like this. Thanks.
Ach. There are currently Armenian-antiquity-related edit wars breaking out on Urartu and Hayasa-Azzi, due in no small part to Ararat arev's prior contributions, which our other non-banned Armenian users have picked up on. This needs some attention. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Rudra, look at the History of Iran template! (here -> Template:History_of_Iran) It is from around 4000 BC in their template! Hah!. They have a long list of the cultures, tribes in ancient Iran there, before they arrived, starting from Proto-Elamite civilization in 3200 BC, yes in their template!. Are you saying Persians claim they are that much older? Persian kingdom (Persians) started from 600 BC too, they are putting their ancient history in their template, yes in their template, and you are removing ours. We have our long list of tribes and cultures in Armenia as well, starting from Neolithic, if you read in the History of Armenia section, and than Kuro-Araxes_culture, etc etc...
This is what it says-> "The history of Armenia begins with Neolithic cultures of the South Caucasus, such as the Shulaveri-Shomu culture, followed by the Bronze Age Kura-Araxes and Trialeti cultures." Where is this in our History of Armenia template? Why should History of Iran template have theirs and not us to have ours?? 75.51.172.124 ( talk) 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
calm down. This is Ararat arev, and the recommended course of action is WP:DENY: revert and move on. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently open at Dysgenics, asking whether the article in question devotes too much space to a WP:FRINGE subject. A wider input would be appreciated at the RfC. Thanks!-- Ramdrake ( talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope it helps.-- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems to suffer badly from US-centrism. Is there any chance we can move this to genetic deterioration and focus on non-human populations, mentioning humans as a marginal special case, and relegate the whole Race and Intelligence stuff to where it belongs? If I want to read up on genetic deterioration, I am not interested in petty squabbling over "race and intelligence" debates in the US culture wars. dab (𒁳) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you think? Is it only a few people who think that parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Certain people at Talk:Parapsychology are convinced of this and are not backing down. They reminded me of a proposal I made a while back to add a section to WP:FRINGE about particular attribution. So I was bold and tried out some wording. More eyes are needed both there and at WT:FRINGE#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This website is used in quite a few articles. It's a personal website although with articles by other authors, arguing for Phoenicians in Brazil, Australia, etc (and of course they come from Atlantis). It also calls itself the "Virtual Center for Phoenician Studies" and "Encyclopedia Phoeniciana". I'm trying to do some cleanup. It seems used quite a bit in Carthage for instance. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 11:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have asked ArbCom to endorse discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPseudoscience_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMartinphi-ScienceApologist.. Vassyana ( talk) 12:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get your take on whether UNSC resolutions should be described as binding or non-binding if the aren't taken under Chapter 7 of the UN charter? They are currently described as somewhat non-binding however this contradicts what the UN itself would tell you if you went on a tour of the UN. This originally came to my attention when I saw some changes made to United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 initially the changes described the resolution non-binding because it was not done under chapter 7 of the UN charter. I had reverted this change in that it was unsourced and this was in turn unreverted and an additional section was added as to who believes it to be binding versus who believes it to be non-binding. The way the article stands right now is that it merely states that the resolution wasn't done under binding Chapter 7 of the UN charter. You'll notice on the talk page that I expressed concerns about suggesting that UNSC resolutions are non-binding when the International Court of Justice says that they are binding however the response I received was that the ICJ opinion itself was non binding. Also if you look at UN_Security_Council#Resolutions it says all the above that was added to the UNSC 497 article. Another concern is that the article might be cherry picking scholars or politicians who claim that UNSC resolutions not done under Chapter 7 are non-binding. I posted a concern about using the opinion of Erika De Wet when there is no article about her in Wikipedia so she might not even be notable however I was told here that she is notable. I post the above as much for my own understanding as well as getting accuracy in these articles. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Also, see an excellent comment by an anon on the UNSC 497 talk page. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's what some reliable sources say on the matter:
Long list of sources |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hope that's helpful. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This Security Council Resolution was not taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Resolutions made under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[1] The International Court of Justice (ICJ), however, has asserted that all UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding,[2] in its 1971 Namibia non-binding advisory opinion. This assertion by the ICJ has been countered by Erika De Wet and others....In practice, the Security Council does not consider its decisions outside Chapter VII to be binding.[3]
(unindent)I wonder if all of this stems from different definitions of what constitutes a Non-binding resolution. If you look at the wikiarticle for non-binding resolution it defines it as a resolution that cannot pass into law. However, if you look at some discussion that I had with Rudra on his talk page, His understanding is that '"Binding" generally means "UN members are obliged to enforce"'. I wonder if non-chapter 7 resolutions might actually fall under international law but the members are not obliged to enforce them. So in the example above, Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights is illegal under international law due to UNSC 497 however since UNSC 497 was not under chapter 7, the members of the UNSC are not obliged to enforce UNSC 497. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 04:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Modified Newtonian dynamics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The current version could be a poster child for the presentation of fringe topics as mainstream alternatives. The eyes and opinions of some physics-savvy people would be appreciated. Vassyana ( talk) 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
User Cadwallader thinks the Barry Fell article is not NPOV. He has heavily edited it, putting in a large section from a self-published web page with claims I have checked in any case and seem to have no weight or evidence behind them. Based on that self-published site, he writes "scientific inquiry proved him correct on the one point where academia had published a critique and defamation of him as a "fraud"." See the talk page where I discuss this. He has also added "The West Virginia Archaeologist, which claims to be a peer reviewed journal, published a few other articles critical of Fell, including one by Edo Nyland, a physics professor, who agreed the inscription was Ogam but translated it in the Basque language as a story about a failed buffalo hunt. Though Oppenheimer and Wirtz were Washington D.C. attorneys with no formal expertise in petroglyphs or ancient scripts, their "expert" rebuttal is still being used to discredit Fell today[5]." Maybe the magazine claims to be peer reviewed, I don't know. What I do know is that Edo Nyland is only quoted in the magazine, he is not the author of an article, and the sentence beginning with 'though' is editorial. Note that Barry Fell himself has no formal expertise in anything but marine biology. I see Til Eulenspiegel has also joined in. I'm not sure where to go from here, but the Pyle stuff should be removed I believe as failing WP:RELIABLE but obviously Til Eulenspiegel and Cadwallader don't see it that way.
User insist on insertion of off-topic (my opinion) material about leftist symbols [23] into this article about Racism in football because, his argument - "it is sourced". Sourced on "Gazeta Polska" a weakly which is called "far right" [24]? and "should not be considered mainstream". [25] . WP:FRINGE? Discussion here [26]. M0RD00R ( talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Controversy surrounding cult-like sub-group of Tibetan Buddhism that claims great antiquity. Spreading over onto Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso and other high-profile pages. Those familiar with the field might be interested in keeping an eye on it. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 09:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not remember this user, and did not note the warning above -- hence a heads up that this user is currently wreaking havoc in the ancient history topics. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with calling prehistoric Africa "Ancient Africa", or prehistoric Australia "Ancient Australia", but the point is WP:CFORK. Since we already have Prehistoric Australia, Ancient Australia should just be a redirect there. Obviously, talking about "Early Middle Ages" in the context of Australia is about as clueless as it gets. I am not holding my breath to see anything useful from Reddi at this point. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is the site of a conflict between a single indefatigable editor who takes the position that centrifugal force is a real, true, and undeniable phenomenon that exists independently of coordinate frames, and every other editor of the page, who report the standard interpretation of centrifugal force supported by all known reliable sources, in which it is regarded as a pseudo-force that can be described in terms of coordinate transformations of the standard Newtonian equations of motion in an inertial frame.
No matter how many other editors explain this to them, they are steadfast in their determination that the WP:TRUTH must prevail. They are impervious to requests that they provide references to support their view. They are impervious to citations to reliable sources, to polite arguments, to mathematical demonstrations of the effects of coordinate transforms, to animated diagrams showing how the motion of objects appears under these transforms, to polite appeals to abide by policies such as Neutral Point of View, verifiability from reliable sources, and avoiding original research.
Instead, they insist that other editors are unintelligent, incapable of properly understanding physics, and are conspiring against them to suppress the WP:TRUTH; indeed, this essay could almost have been written to describe their editing style.
They appear to be intelligent and sincere, but simply unwilling -- in the interests of THE TRUTH -- to engage in the normal Wikipedia processes. Instead, their strategy appears to be to "win" by simply outlasting other participants in the editing process, something in which they have made considerable progress to date. (I have also considered the possibility that they are a knowledgeable person who is simply trolling for kicks, similar to the behavior of one editor in the 0.999... saga, but I prefer to assume good faith.)
Repeated attempts to forge a compromise, using WP:NPOV, have failed to resolve this conflict, largely because they are unwilling to provide supporting cites which might be used to demonstrate that there is a real controversy over this issue in the citable literature.
As a result, the article has become a mish-mash as it is edited to and fro. I am at a loss to see how this process can be resolved. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
wow, looking at User talk:David Tombe, this does seem to be a case of somebody simply Not Getting It, and admin action may be appropriate at this point. The arbcom will just make a bureaucratic mess of this. We have many many competent editors on physics topics, and they're positive angels to clueless blunderers as a rule, and when somebody just keeps going in spite of everyone, they should just run into blocks of escalating lengths. dab (𒁳) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There's been admin action before, when this user had no user account and edited from many IP accounts [27]. He's repeating similar behavior now but being very careful to avoid 3RR by not reverting, instead just deleting and reinserting material to fit his POV. Be prepared for a multiple-page useless debate if you try to discuss it with him in good faith. I'm at a loss myself on how best to deal with him. I think it would be best if a disinterested 3rd party brought this up for WP:ANI (i.e., someone who hasn't edited those articles recently). Plvekamp ( talk) 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems he's taking a break for awhile. Let's see how long it lasts, the situation may have resolved itself. Plvekamp ( talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
<scratches head> I usually just block disruptive SPAs indefinitely. Don't know about wikibreak, either, he's been busy editing today. Seeing as he's been going for so long under the IPs, he's not a newbie and appears to have been adequately warned. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If this requires administrator intervention, you can also just ask me for help. I haven't done anything with centrifugal force in a very long time. -- SCZenz ( talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid he's at it again: see this diff, where the whole package of ideas is shoved back in again after having been removed for lack of references, complete with an edit comment that says "this has got nothing to do with references." Please also see my most recent comment on the talk page of the editor in question. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the edits in question are coatracking in order to support the theory in this paper [28] in a non-peer reviewed internet journal. The paper claims that inertia is due to centrifugal force in the aether, and much of it is based on the misconceptions contained in the edits this user keeps inserting into the article. Plvekamp ( talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This already had a lot of detail about Fomenko's arguments, now someone has added a huge wodge more which may be OR, certainly seems WP:Undue -- he didn't like my reverting it.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Earlier today I tagged this article for proposed deletion. Since it is pretty fringe, I thought I might as well mention that here. (I considered tagging it for rapid deletion, because a substantial part of the article seems blatant advertising to promote their group, but was not sure if it really qualified.) Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated both articles for deletion since the only "notability" given for Gray is as the originator of this. Mangoe ( talk) 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The article Dendera light says "As far back as 1894, J. N. Lockyer mentioned in passing the possibilities of lamps.[4" and the footnote is "J. Norman Lockyer, "Dawn of Astronomy". Kessinger Publishing, 1992. 448 pages. ISBN 1564591123 (c.f., "[...] possibility that the electric light was known to the Ancient Egyptians.)" I looked this up. What I found on page 180 of P. 180 [30] Dawn of Astronomy By J. Norman Lockyer was Lockyer suggesting that mirrors were used to illuminate areas where no direct light reached, writing that "in all freshly opened tombs there are no traces whatever of any kind of combusion having taken place, even in the innermost recesses. So strikingly evident is this that my friend M Bouriant, laughingly suggested the possibility that the electric light was known to the ancient Egyptians." Has this been interpreted reasonably in the article and footnote? I suspect the editor obtained the Kolbe quote, which I can't check, from here: [31]. Thanks.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
user:Rokus01 is back, keen to promote all things Aryan as usual, adding alleged Chinese Indo-European origins wherever he can [32] and performing other marvels. Paul B ( talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not know if it has been discussed here, but I noticed the other day that there seems to be a new Hermetism template, which can be seen (for instance) on the Hermetism article, and on the Hermetic Qabalah article. Of course there is nothing (as far as I know) hermetic about Hermetic Qabalah, which owes more to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and to Aleister Crowley, than to any classical source. Also, looking at the Hermeticism article, I see it unites a source in ancient Egypt with the 20th century lunatic Aleister Crowley -- which is complete nonsense. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
User:PetraSchelm has reverted (without prior discussion or consensus) a long-standing, sourced section on "Controversial Research", citing WP:COATRACK:
I'd like to invite discussion from other editors. My own view is that CSA has seen more than its fair share of "controversial" research, in addition to the non-controversial research carried out in the spirit of Kinsey, before the CSA paradigm became powerful as it is today. There is also lots of critical literature outside of the medical field that isn't even mentioned.
In this sense, coatrack does not justify the removal of whole sections, and the way that this was done was less than civil. Lambton T/ C 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this version of the article, I agree some coatracking is going on and that the "Controversial research" section is too lengthy. Some mention of the most notable research is fine, with due discussion and rebuttals: three whole hefty paragraphs is probably not. Make it short and sweet. Certainly, this research is very fringy stuff, and should be dealt with as such. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
ResearchEditor (
talk) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any "coatracking" here so much as the attempt to over-emphasize the weight of a minority view. So some study interviewed minors on how they feel about being in a "relationship" with adults. The study was heavily criticized as pedophile activism masquerading as science. This is all perfectly on topic in the "child sexual abuse" article, we just need to take care not to allow the article to implicitly jump to conclusions ( WP:SYN), along the lines of "the Stockholm syndrome says some people feel good about being held hostage. Hence, we conclude it is really ok to take hostages or kidnap people." Plus, there is a main article, Rind et al. controversy; details on that should go there. pro-pedophile activism should perhaps be considered a valid sub-article of Child sexual abuse, and the "controversial research" could be accommodated in that context. -- dab (𒁳) 14:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
← PetraSchelm is correct, and dab also stated it very well at 14:55 and 15:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC). The study was widely debunked and criticized by science and widely quoted by pedophile activists. In the CSA article, a short paragraph about pedophile activisim and the use of Rind et al and maybe Sandfort by activists would be appropriate, with links to the relevant articles. It needs to be done carefully without SYN. There is no controversy about this in scientific research today to report, and to include information in the article that implies there is, would be undue weight for a fringe theory, from the smallest of fringes. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) This may be a silly question — I'm not sure — but how much research really looks into the causal relationships between child sexual abuse and future life problems? I know the correlation is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've just heard, admittedly in nonscholarly sources, the suggestion that the reaction to CSA and the social stigma is at least as damaging as the CSA itself. Is there any solid research on this question? < eleland/ talk edits> 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the reasons that you are having difficulty attracting opinions from "outside" editors is that the barriers to entry are set so high that few of us are likely to want to get involved. First, you have to be prepared to take endless abuse and personal attacks, and this regardless of your views. (And please don't do a "Who, me?" or ask for diffs, or we will all be here forever.) Both sides do it and most, if not all, individuals. Second, the views of any outsider who is not prepared to claim a high degree of professional background in psychology is going to be dismissed, so who would bother taking the time to think about the issues? And those who do claim a professional background are also dismissed by the other side with a level of vitriol that reminds me of domestic-abuse fights.
In order likely only to prove my points, I will make one stab at the issues. The article is about sexual abuse perpetrated against children. Leaving aside that "child" may be defined differently across the world's varied cultures, there are very few jurisdictions where sex with a child is not declared, by definition under the law, to be abuse. I think, from what I am reading here and on the pages of the various articles, that these points are agreed as to stating what is the case. (And we are not here, or in the article, dealing with what should be the case.)
The heavy preponderance of formal studies, broadly accepted in the scientific community, conclude that adults having sex with a child do harm to the child. This would be what I will call here, the "primary conclusion". (No scientific study of which I am aware, and certainly no psychological one, has 100% certainty. The degree of deviance from 100% establishes the amount of weight that should be given to dissenting opinions when discussing the primary conclusions.)
Rind, and others who seem to agree with him, no matter how many of them write and publish, still represent a very small area of dissent from the primary conclusion. (It is not the number of papers that determine the weight of professional opinion, but the weight of the evidence within any study that, gathered with others, determines the validity of the primary conclusion.) Thus, in an article on Rind or his compatriots, or on pro-pedophile views, you can give his studies the significant weight because you are there only discussing the opinions that dissent from the primary conclusion. Child sex abuse is about the primary conclusion, which is that, flatly stated, sex with adults harms children. I would suggest, given the worldwide weight, that Rind and those who agree with Rind, get a single, short, declaratory sentence about the dissent, and a reference that identifies the study. In Related Links, include the Rind article and the pro-pedophile activism one. There is one outside opinion. Enjoy! ៛ Bielle ( talk) 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm having problems with the editor who created Oera Linda, and related stubs Irtha. Wr-alda. Frya, Fasta (Frisian) and maybe more. The stubs in my opinion have no justification and should be in the main article, maybe left as redirects, and include his personal opinion as shown in edit summaries such as (for Wr-alda "Look up the Sami god and you'll see it's patently obvious." He's also twice removed my mention of a new article on Oera Linda, I've put it back again, we shall see how long that lasts. I don't want to get into a personal edit war with him.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 08:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
From Su vegetarianism:
Su vegetarianism, which some airlines call Asian vegetarian, comes from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. No animal products whatsoever are eaten; su vegetarians also do not eat the fetid vegetables: onion, garlic, scallions, leeks, or shallots.
This diet not only benefits physical health, but also helps to settle the mind as well. Buddhist experience in meditation shows that those who eat the fetid vegetables are prone to restless minds, and have great difficulty making progress in meditation.
Su vegetarianism seems to be a combination of vegetarianism, rooted in Mahayana Buddhism, but the stuff about avoiding "fetid vegetables," is ancient Indian or Chinese folk medicine, not having anything to do with Hinduism or Buddhism. The claims about physical and mental health are also pretty suspect. It might just be a good idea to re-direct it to Buddhist vegetarianism.
Also, since this is English Wikipedia, shouldn't references be in English? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody give this a quick look. I'm having to argue that the mainstream scholarly position and dictionary definition of feminism should be used without attribution and without giving weight to minor/fringe/dissenting ideas in the lead line. As is the norm for the lead lines of articles.
I'm being asked to attribute (that is name drop who says) the clause that "feminism is movement for equal rights for women". This is not something that I think needs to be done in the lead. I'm not necessarily averse to citation in this case but attribution of a view held by the majority of mainstream sources and dictionaries seems unnecessary to me - especially in a lede line, and when the view is cited below in the article's text.
The unattributed use of the mainstream definition is being disputed, by User:Blackworm, because he contends that becuase authors (see these 2 links [43] [44] )have contrary views to the mainstream definition (that is basically the dictionary definition) of feminism this mainstream view cannot be presented without attribution in the lede. I think this objection comes under WP:FRINGE. The mainstream definitions and dictionary definitions all say very similar things to the effect of feminism being a movement for equality. These articles don't show why that common mainstream and dictionary definition needs qualification to the degree asked for.
Now, AFAIK we don't attribute the mainstream and dictionary definition of subjects if that definition is common among the vast majority of reliable scholarly sources and if it is cited in the article. Nor do we need to say this subject "usually is defined" in the lede when the overwhelming majority of definitions present the history of the 'feminism as a movement for equality between mean and women'. Yes there are dissenting opinions about that but we mention them in the article and we don't give it undue weight by putting fringe ideas in the lede.
Below is a collapsed box detailing a very small sample of sources and dictionary defs stating this mainstream view:
Showing a very few samples of sources for this mainstream idea |
---|
|
More, many many more, sources could be added to the collapsed list. (Please check this against google scholar and google books). Hence my position that attribution (name dropping a scholar) of what is the commonly held mainstream definition (as represented in multiple dictionary definitions as well) is unnecessary in the lead sentence - referencing it is of course okay but that's not even usually necessary in the first line of an article as per WP:LEAD and as can be seen by looking at the lead sentences in any article at Wikipedia:Featured_articles.
If you want to see the discussion click here (but it's very long-- Cailil talk 00:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_is_.22mainstream.3F.22 could use some views of people on the front lines. When people are cheerfully saying that all the articles need is a few people to go in and sort things out, then, clearly, they have never attempted to sort out any alternative medicine article. At the moment, the article on Radionics - a form of witchdoctory where a bit of hair or blood is put into a machine to allow distant practitioners to send healthy vibes at you - is full of nothing but glowing praise, for instance, and this is true of 90% of alternative and complementary medicines. Homeopathy required many years of work to get to the state it's in - and is now at Arbcom. 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk • contribs)
Prem Rawat is the Indian-born head of a spritual movement. He was once known as "Guru Maharaj Ji" and led the Divine Light Mission. He and his movement were the subject of numerous scholarly and journalistic articles during their heyday. One scholar's book has been accused of making exceptional claims, trigering WP:REDFLAG. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so in addition to deciding that the claims are exceptional we need to decide that the source is not a "high-quality reliable source". The debate is at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. As currently drafted, the assertions of Jan van der Lans are summarized thus:
The specific objections are "that he's a charlatan leading a double life" and that "his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders". FWIW, everyone agrees that the subject led a life of luxury and opulence.
To rebut the assertion that these are exceptional claims, I've done research on news clippings from the era, and find that these claims are confirmed by comments from friends, family, and associates (some ofthem estranged).
In light of this information, is it reasonable to say that van der Lans represents a fringe viewpoint, and that his scholarly research makes exceptional claims, or are his assertions consistent with statements by other parties, meaning that they are not exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
(What this was placed in this noticeboard? The correct noticeboard seems to be
Wikipedia:V/N.)
≈ jossi ≈
(talk) 01:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Schnabel points to a difference in appreciation between northern America, the eastern world and Europe ( p 104):
Voorts mag worden opgemerkt, dat de meeste nieuwe religieuze bewegingen Nederland hebben bereikt via de Verenigde Staten en beïnvloed zijn door de ‘zucht naar rijkdom’, waarvan De Tocqueville (1971 (1840), 206) al tot zijn verbazing moest vaststellen dat die ‘bij de Amerikanen dus geenszins in een kwade reuk staat, ja zelfs bewonderd wordt...’. De ambivalente houding ten opzichte van geld, die de Europeaan kenmerkt, is in Amerika en ook in het Oosten vrijwel geheel afwezig. In de Verenigde Staten wordt geld duidelijk als een positief bewijs en als een symbool van het eigen maatschappelijk succes beleefd. Een kwantitatieve verandering leidt hier zonder twijfel tot een kwalitatieve omslag. Wie arm is, heeft dat aan zichzelf te wijten: wie rijk is heeft dat aan zichzelf te danken. In India denkt men daar misschien wat genuanceerder over, maar ook daar geldt dat het bezit van geld zeker geen schande is en ook geen gevoel van schuld geeft in de confrontatie met de armoede rondom. Rijkdom is altijd verdiend. Het ideaal van de Indiase ascese is dan ook niet het in armoe leven op zich, maar het verzaken van de wereld: het loslaten van dat wat men heeft, nadat men zijn maatschappelijke verplichtingen heeft vervuld. Arm zijn is op zich geen verdienste, en de armen is ook zeker niet meer het rijk der hemelen dan de rijken. |
(summary:) Schnabel points out that in the US (and the East but with more nuance there) richess is seen as a positive sign; In Europe (with the Netherlands as an example), money has a "bad odour", in general - or: Europeans have an ambivalent attitude w.r.t. richess. |
A bit simplistic, but this is more or less the picture: in Europe a religious leader would cross a line from the moment he lives in luxury, or alternatively when he teaches something different as to what he applies to himself (for this point see Schnabel p 101, this makes a charismatic leader a fraud/"bedrieger"); the US has more tolerance in that respect: neither does affluence in and by itself, nor the charismatic leader putting himself apart from the flock carry a necessary connotation of condemnation. There, affluence is admired; "fraud" would only apply when appropriating money in mischievous ways, etc.
For all Dutch authors from the early 1980s we've been considering regarding Rawat (Haan, Van der Lans, Kranenborg, Lammers, Schnabel,...) there's no doubt, Rawat crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed (in a European perspective) - that is the mainstream opinion there; For US/northern American authors of roughly the same period the mainstream opinion is that he's a quite successful religious leader, and that accusations from former adherents and disgraced family members are "fringe".
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion originated at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#Van der Lans. Maybe it's time to take it back there.
In the mean while Jayen provided a context analysis there ( Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat#van der Lans: context - "The text on Andries' page was essentially correct ...") – the apparent context being a fairly standard description of disciple-guru relationship, as pointed out by Jossi.
Is anyone still contending a REDFLAG re. Van der Lans? In other words, can we get rid of ( Criticism of Prem Rawat#Observations from scholars):
Jan van der Lans, a professor of psychology of religion at the Radboud University Nijmegen, wrote about followers of gurus in a book published in 1981 commissioned by the KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association that organizes conferences and publishes articles and books related to faith, religion and mental health<ref> KSGV: Objectives<br>"Het KSGV onderneemt zijn activiteiten vanuit een christelijke inspiratie."</ref>. Van der Lans wrote that...
... and replace it by:
Jan van der Lans, a Dutch professor of psychology of religion wrote in 1981...
? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Mista-X ( talk · contribs) is going about claiming that Joseph Stalin had nothing to do with the assassination of Leon Trotsky. He does so by claiming there is "no evidence", though of course there is, and even the Soviet government acknowledged as much in the late 1980's. Mista-X has done this in the past, and been blocked for it, and he's at it again. I'd like extra eyes on the following articles, if possible:
It would be nice if we keep Wikipedia at least as honest about Soviet history as the Soviet textbooks themselves were. MastCell Talk 22:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I had tagged this article [46], but another editor who apparently thinks the article is well sourced and reasonable just removed the tag. last week I was able to get two forks from this article speedy deleted, on the grounds of blatant advertising, but I suppose they will soon be back...if they are not already. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
{unindent)It's fringe, so it's discussion is appropriate here. Andries is the (re)creator of the Share International article. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm Schosha, I am still convinced that you are off-topic here. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Dispute_about_scope_of_Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.2FNoticeboard. Andries ( talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that Share International has been nominated for deletion [49]. Anyone interested in the Benjamin Creme discussion (above), and on the talk page, might want to take a look and comment. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please watchlist NAET and Energy medicine, I just got these to some vague semblence of NPOV and Verifiability, and, well. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Those of us who regularly watch this page are quick to spot pseudoscience and label it as such. We are much slower off the mark as to pseudohistory (Probably more scientists watch this page than historians). In any case, a slow boil edit war (ie it changes back and forth about once a month) is going on at the article on Robert Lomas, the author of "The Hyram Key" (basic premise for those not familiar with the book: The ancient Egyptians had ritual certain practices; The early Christians in Jerusalem followed these practices, and by the way Jesus did not die on the cross; Suppose they hid documents to this effect in the ruins of the Temple. The Knights Templars are said to have found something in the ruins of the Temple, therefore what they found were these documents. Since the Freemasons might be descendants of the Templars, the Masons are directly connected to the Ancient Egyptians.) To me this has so many suppositions and conjectures that it can only be called pseudohistory. However, attepts to categorize Lomas as a pseudohistorian and his label his work as pseudohistory are reverted. Note... the book was a best seller and helped inspire The DaVinci Code... so it is notable. Those of us arguing to call it pseudohistory are not attempting to delete the article... only to make it clear that this is not history. Some assistance by those who care about historical Fringe Theories is needed. Blueboar ( talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Cassi article blithely states By the 1st C AD, the Cassi had become known as the Catuvellauni (“Battle Superiors”). and cites Daithi O Hogan's "The Celts: A History" as its source. The first problem is that this seems pure conjecture based on the name Cassivellaunus and the second is that I understand O Hogan is a folklorist rather than a historian and that his book has had some pretty savage reviews. Does anyone know any more? Paul S ( talk) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And Catuvellauni “Battle Superiors” -- Google books shows up only Daithi O’Hogain, and Google scholar, nothing. And although I have nothing against Daithi O’Hogain, if he is the sole source, something seems wrong.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A new anon 189.48.107.245 ( talk · contribs · count) has arrived and posted the same lengthy and fairly incoherent discussion of Heisenberg: Heisenberg's scientific criterion on various talk pages touching on the philosophy and history of science. Does anyone know whether it's proper to just delete this material rather than keep it cluttering up the pages? -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Some sort of fringey massage, written almost entirely from promotional sources. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Added cites for science research. SmithBlue ( talk) 05:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC) And please strive for more accuracy with your template's reasons for deletion. Making mistakes like claiming Myss, Caroline (1997). Why People Don't Heal and How They Can. Harmony Books. ISBN 0-60960-090-7 is not an RS on Medical Intuituive when WP:NPOV clearly states "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them", and Myss' books are the "bibles" of MI, just makes all skeptics look like stupid biased fools. You want an accurate encyclopaedia? - well you model accuracy first. Throwing templates around as on Feldenkrais and Rolfing just makes skeptics look like ill-informed fundamentalist apologists for the mainstream partyline. Skeptics need to be respected for their reasoning not for blind rejection of the new or differrent. SmithBlue ( talk) 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could get this made NPOV, etc. Then we could upmerge some of the tiny-altmed to it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Written like an advertisement [in parts] - I've removed the worst bits, but it really needs an expert to check it over. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an article that has recently been completely rewritten by one editor. There seem to be some problems with it, including that it mostly discusses energy healing, a subject not necessarily indicated by its name and introduction. I would appreciate it if some editors would take a look at it; because, perhaps, my uneasiness about it is unjustified. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
" Prana and Qi (among others)" have their own articles. The article is pure WP:SYN. Unless an identifiable concept of "spiritual energy" can be referenced to some RS, I suggest this page should be a disambiguation page, or redirect to Energy (disambiguation). You cannot google "energy" and then cobble together the results into a single article. "Energy" is too common a word for that. dab (𒁳) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Taking the suggestion of Itsmejudith, I have been looking through some of the earliest versions of the article. Of the one I have so far looked at this one [54] seems the most balanced and neutral. Perhaps going back to this version would be a good new start for the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
case in point, actus is also "spiritual energy" (energeia), but far from being a topic of soft-headed esotericist blather, it is a perfectly respectable topic in philosophy. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)