User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2008/December

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jayen466. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Permission for images

Hi Jayen, I find the documentation on what to do after obtaining permission for images confusing. Is this right: User talk:Esowteric/Archives/2008/November#Saira Elizabeth Luiza Shah image ? Cheers, EricT (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Safia Shah image: cheers. Will see if I've got the SEL Shah procedure right first, otherwise I might have two cock-ups on the go :) EricT (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, have just sent TS a grant form for SEL Shah image. Hopefully getting there after several botched attempts. As a newbie, what threw me was this: Wikipedia_talk:Example_requests_for_permission#No_mention_of_grant_form. Cheers, EricT (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OTRS is pending, though there may be a delay -- 1500 pending images currently queued and only 25 OTRS volunteers. EricT (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well :D ... on the other hand, if you've got spare time on your hands ... sounds like they could do with some help ;-) Cheers, Jayen 466 13:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Sorted, thanks. EricT (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ross

That is an interesting exchange that you and jossi are having with Ross. I am tempted to paint a bulls eye on my butt and add my two cents. Maybe I can find the time, prolly not. Ross is doing what many here do, creating a fiction in his own mind and perpetrating it as truth here. The fiction he is creating and promoting is that somehow editors that subscribe to a minority belief system have free rein to influence Wikipedia articles. As if! No, it is the critics of those belief systems that are given free rein here. The project even has a name for it systemic bias.

Request for comment

Hi, I noticed that you have been involved in previous WP:SYNTH discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Would you care to comment on the section Wikipedia talk:No original research#Insidious OR? Thank you. --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please

Have a look on p chart.
Martin Segers

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

osho talk.

hello jayen would you please comment as to your position regarding the comments in .. move to america again.. on the osho page. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

could you move to this? if not why not? although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert. Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Whatever we write has to be based on a published view (see WP:V). Where published views vary, we should give the most significant views in proportion to their prominence in the most reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship and WP:NPOV). We can't enter our own conclusions in the article (WP:OR). Have a look at the policies I have linked for you here, and the source excerpts listed on the talk page. Cheers, Jayen 466 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ok I'm looking at that..i have no objection to you deleting this to keep your page tidy.

this is semiT standpoint... Osho entered America based on a false information and was found guilty of doing so, this is fact. The movement has their version of the story the authorities have another. There are also multiple sources that specifically question the motivation underlying the move to America and the means that were used to achieve it. This is relevant, notable, and there are multiple verifiable sources that deal with this..

here semiT agrees with my comment and mentions multiple verifiable sources..

and we can verify the utopian city part as that is what osho and his sannyasins immediately started to do. verifiaby in the same way that a man wanted to commit suicide so he does it . it is well published that ... as I have put it .. although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert. Osho as I know him probably could'nt have cared less about what was written on his entry paper he had his mind on spiritual matters. do you disagree with this .. if not then we can source the multiple verifiable sources.. if you know what I mean. I actually like this stance and feel it takes nothing away from osho. can you agree with that simple deceit? (Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't matter whether I agree or not. But there are sources saying that he was still adamant he would not go to the US a couple of weeks before he actually did go, much to the consternation of his aides, who really wanted him to go. The idea had been brought up before, and he had long resisted it. And Laxmi was still looking in India ... to me personally, her comment probably speaks to the heart of things: she failed to find a place, he got ill, and the initiative passed to Sheela. What is clear is he wanted a big commune. I don't think he cared where it was. Sheela promised him she could make it happen in the States. Jayen 466 20:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

yes sheela was a big factor in the move to america .. you have quotes for this.

so you could agree with me his intention was a big commune and he did'nt care where it was ! I think he was nervous to go to america it was a big move but once they had got him on that plane it was a done deal. sheela promised him it would all be ok and he went with it..she imo and in the opinion of the local indian papers at the time was that she pushed it through to avoid paying tax.which they did avoid until their return when the local papers wrote that an agreement had been reached on the back tax. the visa story should have been sorted properly. I can only imsgine they were still thinking they could deal with it later like they had been used to the way in india. so the visa was the technicallity that they used when they wanted to get rid of him. 'that simple deceit' lets go with it? semiT's gonna like it! and thats all it was ..a simple visa irregularity.. hardly mass murder was it? (Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

The thing is, if you just want to write that it was "a case of simple deceit", then reliable sources have to be found that comment on the matter and use these or similar words to describe it. Jayen 466 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Scientology

I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 18:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Durova. Jayen 466 18:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you state that the IPs registered to the Church of Scientology should be allowed to edit the site and the existing ban lifted. Could you point me to the enactment of the ban? A diff would do. Why do you think such a ban was placed?

What if significant disruption comes from the Church of Scientology IPs. If such activity comes from a random high school IP, it is customary to block them. There are several measures to let "good users" edit. For example editing anonymously (IPs) can be blocked while user accounts are allowed to edit. This would help filter any disruption coming from public computers. I do not believe this was available in September 2007. I am merely trying to investigate a possible way to make everything work with this. What do you think?

Could you demonstrate examples of poor sources used by different editors. I want to get the feel of what kind of sources you feel should not be used on the relevant articles.

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat ^chi? 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, nice to hear from you. You've long had a credit on my user page for the flags thing. ;-)

First off, there hasn't been a ban, although some users would like to see the Scientologist editors banned now. I am not quite clear which of the existing remedies they are supposed to have violated. The remedies of the previous arbcom case, which I was not involved in, are here.
Some examples of poor sourcing are on the evidence page, a few more are on the associated talk page. My view is – and that is my view, others see it differently – there hasn't really been one-sided disruption by Scientology IPs so much as simply an adversarial relationship between Scientologist editors and anti-Scientology editors. They haven't cooperated much for the good of the article. Anti-Scientology editors have pushed for inclusion of material from press sources (including downmarket ones), and prominent topics on websites like http://www.whyaretheydead.net, http://www.lermanet.com, and http://www.xenu.net – resulting in articles whose tone and content is quite similar to what is on these websites, and quite a long way removed from what you find in scholarly sources. It's a bit like writing the article on Islam based on the editorial tone and the key points of interest highlighted in http://www.prophetofdoom.net (have a quick look at http://www.prophetofdoom.net and compare it to our featured article on Islam: the approach of the anti-Scientology sites is quite similar). Scientologist editors have tried to resist these efforts, but they have usually been outnumbered, leading to articles that are more adversarial, disrespectful, ridiculing and negative in tone than the existing scholarship. On the whole, scholarly books and papers have been used very little, except for publications by Stephen A. Kent, who is by far the most hostile scholar.
I haven't done an awful lot of editing on Scientology-related topics here. I have kept an eye on Scientology as a state-recognized religion for the past year or so and have recently started to contribute to Scientology beliefs and practices. But I've long been aware that our Scientology articles mostly don't cite books and scholarly papers, but primary sources, websites and press articles.

If you want to collect evidence, there are several approaches open to you: (1) Search here and then check what sort of sources are cited in these articles, especially in BLPs for prominent Scientologists. (2) Check article talk pages like Talk:Scientology and Talk:David Miscavige and their associated archives, and cross-reference that to the associated edit wars in the article history to get a feel for the climate. (3) Check the user contributions for other notable editors such as User:AndroidCat, User:Fahrenheit451, User:GoodDamon, User:Justallofthem, User:Misou, User:Shutterbug, User:Spidern and contrast their approaches to sourcing, editorial voice etc. The current emphasis on User:Cirt in the arbcom is a bit unfortunate; it's just because this arbitration case started out as two AE threads, one of which was specifically about Cirt. I think broadening the evidence to include other editors would probably be helpful. When there have been edit wars, two "camps" have usually formed. One of the challenges will be to get the two camps to work with each other, rather than against each other. I think the way forward lies in both sides buying into the idea of using the most reliable and most high-quality secondary sources, and foregoing primary and other less reliable sources that are bound to be controversial with the other side. Hope this has been helpful. Cheers, Jayen 466 01:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466, I read the above statement. You state some points that I find helpful, but you make some very colored remarks than lead me to question your interest in the scientology articles: You state that Stephen Kent is the most hostile scholar. Please show me that he is hostile and then show me that he is the most hostile. Factually, he publishes articles that the Office of Special Affairs does not like. You also divide editors into two camps, the scientologists and anti-scientologists. I think that is an over-simplification that obfuscates the variety of perspective editors of scientology articles have on the English language Wikipedia. Since you are relatively new to editing scientology articles, you may not be aware that there have been sincere attempts in the past of various editors to work with editors with differing perspectives on various scientology articles. This has had limited success after the last Arbcom when special rules were instituted on the scientology articles, but did not bring harmony to the editing process. I have my own views of why this did not occur and cannot occur. Over to you. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Kent, could you name a couple of scholars whose criticisms of Scientology in academic writings have been sharper, more prolific and more vociferous than those made by Kent? Jayen 466 09:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re your assertion about Kent, please back up your statements with evidence as I originally requested. The burden of proof is on you.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OCRT

Hi Jayen466, I've continued the discussion regarding OR on the OCRT page here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg. I've had a go at revising the article. Jayen 466 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)