User talk:Wjhonson/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This archive created 7/30/2006

Contents

[edit] The Baha'i Faith

In my experience, some Baha'is resent any attempt to cast their founders in any light other than the one "approved by the House of Justice". From my research, the history of the movement, going even as far back as the Shaytis gets re-writen with every new generation. Deliberate misstaments are passed on, to the mostly US converts who cannot read the original languages, and do not have the perspicacity to delve into the controversies that have raged in this community since it's founding. I do not ever anticipate getting a Baha'i Barnstar or whatever their stupid *medal* is called, even though I have done more research than probably 98% of them. In fact, I think I'll look into creating my own medal. Maybe I'll call it a "Baha'i TRUTH medal". Wjhonson 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon link

Hi, I removed the link to Amazon from the HPB page, because commercial links and links to Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services should not be linked to ([1]). Cheers. --Mallarme 11:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christianity

Hi - sorry I didn't reply to your post on the talk page sooner as somehow I missed it. I've added this [2] and I hope it explains things - if not let me know and I try to clarify further. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 11:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please cite your sources fully

As a courtesy, Wjhonson, please provide page numbers when you cite your sources. According to Harvard referencing practice: "When you can (or should) provide a page number, the convention is (Smith 2005: 73)". Most other style guides consider that an integral part of a citation. MARussellPESE 15:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article. Virtually all of the citations have page numbers and direct links. Not every citation in the encyclopedia has to have pages, but when you're citing work that controversial It's at least a courtesy.
And it's not vandalism when edits are discussed on the talk page and . I'll be reverting back to the substantiated version. I am making a good-faith effort to document on that page the various points. Your referring to anything that you disagree with as vandalism is not helpful, or civil. Please update your edits so that they can be checked. That's not my job. Thank you. MARussellPESE 17:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the verifiability policy. Point 3.: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." You've been asked to provide page a source that can be verified. The burden of evidence is yours. Your objection to the removal is noted, but, repeating yet again: Please provide at least a page number so that your sources can be verified. MARussellPESE 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Test Wikipedia:cite sources

I see I am not the first person to bring the requirement for adequate citations to your attention. You can stop pretending that you don't know that you need to cite page number for verification. -999 (Talk) 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Again you use a non-existent *rule* to support your own view. There is no *policy* that you *must* cite page numbers, so get off your high horse. Thank you and have a nice day. Wjhonson 15:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babi and Baha'i articles

I think I'm beginning to understand your perspective on these topics. It appears that you're relying principally, if not exclusively, on W.M. Miller and Maulana Muhammad Ali. True?

Both confabulate the two religions very badly. Browne certainly did — is MMA's sole source, and one of Miller's primary sources. It pretty clear that Miller does so too when he spends about half of his book talking about the Babi's when it's titled the Baha'i Faith .... This would explain the idea you seem to be pressing that there is a grand arc from the Bab through Azal and then Baha'u'llah is some Babi usurper. That is the Azali perspective, and one that Browne pressed. This is not the Baha'i perspective. (As an aside, Baha'is do venerate the Bab, but use His writings about as much as we use the Bible or Quran. He is not a central scriptural source. Sociologically at least, these are quite different religions.)

Browne's maintained correspondence with both Azalis and Baha'is throughout his career, but published the Azali works he received as genuine Babi documents. He never really got the fact that Baha'u'llah had started another religion before he'd even taken his "year among the Persians" in 1887. It's these one-sided sources that form the basis of MMA's work. (Moojan Momen's Selections from the Writings of E.G. Browne on the Babi and Baha'i Religions is an excellent read, if heavy, and provides interesting background on him and his work.)

Miller's new material from Jalal Azal, the Cypriot scholar he refers to I presume, is interesting, but deserves critical evaluation. He's very likely a descendant of Mirza Yahya, so this material would certainly present only one side. A brief review of Miller's Appendix 2 should suggest that at least some of these documents are suspect. The very first item: How would a genuine letter from `Abdul-Baha end up in Cyprus? Why did it take till the mid twentieth century to materialize? The bayanic.org site also includes this, but doesn't say even to whom it was addressed. Its provenance isn't at all clear. And the fact that it supports the holders' position but is out of character with anything else attributed to him should not inspire confidence.

I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat over these items of Jalal Azal's — just point out only one example of documents that both sides accuse the other of forgery. Azal's appointment letter is another one. (How come his copies say "Then testify that there is no God but you ..." but the one in the Bab's family's own possesion says "Then testify that there is no God but me ..."? The first version is used extensively by the Azalis, the second supports the Baha'is. At most, only one can be right.)

But Miller bought the Azali work hook, line and sinker — these points support his bias as a Christian missionary. (Denis MacEoin, no friend of the Baha'is himself, refers to the book as biased. Elwell-Sutton's review in the JRAS is even more explicit on the shortcomings and bias here. The fact that Miller uses few, if indeed any, Baha'i, or even secular, sources is clear evidence of this.)

Also, Miller seems to have even ignored Browne when inconvenient. Regarding the Akka murders, Miller, p. 101: "And could he [Baha'u'llah] not have disowned them, or at least punished them, for their deeds? As far as is known he did neither."

This is in direct conflict with Browne's Materials, p. 45: "But His Holiness our Master Baha'u'llah, ... did nevertheless abandon them to their legal punishment, and did not seek to obtain for them any release or mitigation, because their action was taken without his approval or consent, and contrary to permanent and decisive commands ...". If that's not evidence of bias, even being deliberately misleading, I don't know what is.

I also think that Miller is demonstrably wrong in at least one particular discussed so far. He doesn't jibe with Browne's primary sources on whether there was a successor. But I'll take that discussion to the article's talk page.

I don't mind at all presenting the dilemma. You've thought, and frankly have acted as if, we Baha'is had thin skins and are having a hissy fit when these are even mentioned. (Some would. These are likely the very same who remove Baha'u'llah's picture regularly from his biographical article and claim wikipedia is insulting them. Tough beans. Cuñado, Jeff3000, me, and most of the regular Baha'is here race each other to put it back up.)

Actually, I'd rather present both sides on these controversial topics. And, I'd also rather provide neutral sources to support either side. That's why I avoid Baha'i sources in Mirza Yahya's and the Babi/Baha'i split articles at almost all costs.

I'd like to see both sides because the more I learn of the characters of the people involved, and what their various enterprises produced, the more it vindicates the Baha'is. (In my opinion.) I think this is the perspective of the Baha'i institutions generally as well.

Miller, Cole, MacEoin, etc., assert that these are hiding things but have yet to produce any smoking guns. They seem to think we're afraid of people "really seeing" what these people were like.

Nonsense. There are easily corroborated facts: Baha'u'llah attracted the overwhelming majority of the Babis to his side. Mirza Yahya died in relative obscurity and was buried with Muslim rites. Abdul-Baha's and Mirza Muhammad Ali's respective careers are equally striking in their differences. The list goes on.

At the end, I'd like you to consider that Miller and MMA are not unbiased, or even authoritative, which it appears you've been pressing. Their notes are useful, but I think it'd be better to use Browne in lieu of them as these are biased secondary sources. Please note the rare use of God Passes By in these articles for the same reason.

Damn, this is bloody long. Appreciate you're reading this far. Apologies for the verbose post. It'd been better to split a pot of coffee I think. Hope this is helpful. MARussellPESE 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] format

I keep correcting the same points, so I thought I'd mention it. In the opening paragraph you should use the page title in bold, followed by the dates they lived (1893-1895), and briefly state why they are notable. Example:

Wjhonson (1820-2003), born Willy James Honson, is a wikipedia editor who hasn't read the Manual of Style.

At the bottom of any article the correct section titles are works, see also, references, and external links, in that order. Don't use the title of "sources", and even if it's a source, a website goes under external links. Anything under references should be published works, and linked to online text if available. Cuñado - Talk 22:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. At least for the linking stuff you showed me. Cuñado - Talk 00:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horace Holley

Sorry about editing in the middle of you. I just wanted to throw in the categories and help with the layout before you got too far. Thanks for contributing. Cuñado - Talk 07:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You can add this image, I just made it. Cuñado - Talk 07:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[[Image:Horace Holley.jpg|thumb|220px|Horace Holley, detail from larger photograph]]

[edit] Colloquy of Worms

Thank you for contributing this article! I have announced it at Portal:Germany/New article announcements#New stubs. If you add more articles relating to Germany, feel free to add them there. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 00:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Reveal names"

Stop doing this. It's not what we do, and it's getting very annoying having to revert dozens of your edits. Proteus (Talk) 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"We" is "Wikipedia". And no, "The Duke of Buckingham" is not an office. And yes, biographies everywhere call people with titles by the title alone. I suggest you go and do some research before making ignorant assumptions. Proteus (Talk) 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset

Please be aware that you may be breaking the 3 Revert Rule if you make any more reverts to the mentioned page, just letting you know in case you didn't realise. If the reverts are over a dispute, I suggest you take this to mediation. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Message on my talk page.

That is fine, you will not be breaking any rules, but I suggest the most constructive way to resolve this is to talk about it on the article's talk page. This will mean we can come up with a compromise solution. If you believe you are right, you may want to get an administrator involved. Abcdefghijklm 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford

Please be aware that you may be breaking the 3 Revert Rule if you make any more reverts to the mentioned page, just letting you know in case you didn't realise. If the reverts are over a dispute, I suggest you take this to mediation. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarisms and sources

It is indeed plagiarism to add text verbatim or ideas and research not your own, and then not properly quote and cite the source work. One sets large text apart by indenting and small section apart with quotes. In both cases a source is properly cited. See any academic manual of style for reference.

The William McElwee Miller article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_McElwee_Miller&diff=next&oldid=46414603 plagiarised this: http://williamcareylibrary.gospelcom.net/thebahaifaith/Preamble-Pages.htm by taking this text verbatim from that source: "He cooperated with Dr. E.E. Elder in translating and publishing the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the most important writing of Baha'u'llah. From a scholar in Cyprus he received a large amount of historical material about the Babi-Baha'i Movement which has not been published previous to this volume."

Likewise the Caravan of East and West article as of this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caravan_of_East_and_West&diff=53309991&oldid=53004044 plagiarized this source: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~bahai/notes/vol2/newhist1.html by taking the whole paragraph, editing part, putting other parts, but not all in quotes, and leaving only a URL as a source. The modifications weren't entirely correct either. The quote is not Julie Chanler's, but Stauffer's. Other parts of the this article were lifted from the H-Baha'i article and "tweaked."

Copying material from online sources and then tweaking them is very easy, but doesn't represent original work. You may want to see this.

An old saw is that borrowing from one source is plagiarism — borrowing from more than one is research. You do seem to have the habit of relying on one, and only one source, which compromises your contributions frankly.

And, by the way, the APA Publication Manual, 5th Edition, (2001) requires, for print sources, that your "give the author, year, and page number in parentheses" (p. 120). See "Citation" for corroboration of this for book citations. MARussellPESE 19:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article goes on for a bit further that just "passing off of another person's work as one's own". And claiming "improper citation" doesn't get around the issue. In both these cases you cut-and-pasted text from another source. In one you re-arranged a bit and dropped some quotation marks on other parts. In the other you just dropped it in verbatim – and left no citation whatever. The "Plagiarism" article also notes "failing to cite quotations and borrowed ideas" as part of one definition. It's hard to see how cut-and-paste work isn't borrowing. And I wonder how much else there is out there of these.
Sloppy citation is another issue entirely. MARussellPESE 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Direct and indirect quoting is a normal part of authoring an article. Each fact you know, you learned from somewhere. There is no requirement to post a citation for every single fact you post. Of the 1.2 million articles, less than one percent has any citations whatsoever. Explain that.
That wikipedia is notrorious for lacking citation is a well-documented criticism, but doesn't set the bar there. Frankly, I consider this issue to be just about a fatal flaw for the project. But cut-and-paste work with, or without, citation isn't "scholarship". MARussellPESE 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, I always cite my sources and references, I don't always use a citation *mark*. I post them in the references, sources or notes area. That is far above the standard behaviour for wikipedia, no matter what you say. And you know it. The vast majority of the Baha'i articles are *not* based on the user's own knowledge and have no quotes, no citations. So you want me to go remove every statement that doesn't have a quote off all those pages? Wjhonson 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What? Haven't you been to the Baha'i articles? Most have "References" sections more robust than "Islam" or "Judaism", and have links to online editions so the reader can verify them for themselves. The Bahá'í Faith article has fifty footnotes, thirteen "References", and fifteen "External links", most of which are not Baha'i. c.f. "Christianity" (with more) and "Islam" (with less). You might want to compare "Jesus", "Muhammad" and "Bahá'u'lláh" as well. Even the third-tier article "Badí‘", all of about ten paragraphs long, has three references and two external links. Those editors have been busting their chops making sure those articles are sourced. MARussellPESE 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but you're deleting sections merely because they lack a citation when a more cordial response would be to post a "citation needed" tag and post a note asking for a better citation. It's fairly obvious you're annoyed to learn that a block of white marble that was supposed to be used in the temple is instead in some library in NYC. That doesn't excuse you from deleting the quote over and over on first purely technical grounds, second on grounds that you have better sources which you refuse to quote, and third just out of pique (not sure if I spelled that right). Are we done pissing on each other? Are you going to post your quotes in the article yet? Wjhonson 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This is about a much broader issue: a pattern of cutting-and-pasting other sources and calling "scholarship". My problems with that article are on that article's talk page where it belongs. MARussellPESE 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style/Format Edits

Wiki does have both a general Manual of Style and various specific articles to guide all users about agreed formats for various things. If you disagree with these conventions then the best thing is to raise the matter and explain what and why things should change at the appropriate sites like project peerage/MoS etc. Launching into mass edits of established formats, especially when your break the 3RR, is only likely to put peoples backs up.

As a general statement, things that matter in one format ie peerage aren't necessarily the format other wiki editors will accept on a global basis and, in the end the consensus rules. Alci12 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there is a "general Manual of Style", I disagree that calling a person by their title alone, is in it. Wjhonson 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -ists

Since Steiner continually emphasized that he was not a theosophist, and did not follow their teachings, it seems rather odd to force him into this category. I don't want a revert war over it, but do look at the talk page.

I have added further documentation to the article of Steiner's distance from the teachings of theosophy. Can we agree to drop the template and leave the category? (Especially since there is no documentation of the appropriateness of the template.)Hgilbert 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frantz Hunt Coe

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Frantz Hunt Coe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Frantz Hunt Coe. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. The school he founded is ProDded as well. Fram 11:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it is deleted yet. I am an editor, not an administrator, so I don't have the power to delete pages. Normally, pages that are ProDded are left there for five daays to be discussed or improved if possible. Some other editor must have put it up for Speedy deletion, and some administrator must have agreed. The most probable reason for this is that they felt that the person was not notable. You can protest the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

A general comment: While deletion of articles can be disappointing to their creator (certainly in your case, when you clearly have the best intentions), they are not directed aganist you personally or against the subject of the article. It is just that we have to maintain some "rules", some level of importance and verifiability, so that Wikipedia stays an encyclopedia and does not become a place where all info is welcome, no matter how trivial and unimportant (see WP:NOT for more of this). Of course, what is not encyclopedic for one person may be very important for another. We have e.g. currently discussions about the inclusion of hotels and of elementary schools. Fram 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, either go to Wikipedia:Deletion review, or create an article with all the sources you can find (online and offline) to assert the notability of him, and then put it on Wikipedia. The way you are going now, I fear that not only the article will be deleted over and over again, but you may get blocked as well (see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule for this). I think you haev valuable things to contribute and do not want to disrupt Wikipedia, and I can uderstand that you are getting frustrated, but please step back a moment and try a different tactic. Fram 20:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/j/h/User_talk%7EWjhonson_Archive4_0769.html"