User talk:Emyth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Emyth, a very warm welcome to Wikipedia! If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. You can sign posts on talk pages by entering four tildes (~~~~~). If you have any other questions about the project, check out Wikipedia:Help, add a question to the Village pump, or leave a message on my Talk page. Enjoy, -- Viajero 20:36, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV Dispute Notice Placement

Hello Cvaneg... Regarding the placement of the NPOV Dispute Notice at the bottom of the Ramakrishna Paramahamsa article, did you read the talk? I explained that I placed it at the bottom because when it was at the top it had be removed by User:Ramashray (who is very definsive of his (her?) article.) I am trying to engage in a careful working through of these issues with a very partisan person. Comments and additions by two other wikipedians have bolstered my case, and Ramashray has participated in the addition of information about the disputes regarding Ramakrishna. We have a teaching moment here...but it's explosive (c.f. the wildly negative and defamatory comments by Ramakrishnan partisans about Jeffrey Kripal and Wendy Doniger...)

I have searched the Wikipedia for some indication of a required placement for the notice, but do not find it. If it is all the same to you, I would prefer to put it back where I had it... Unless, of course, I've overlooked the set , agreed upon convention, in which case I'd appreciate your pointing me to the chapter & verse. Thanks, Emyth 00:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, there does not seem to be a set policy for placement of NPOV dispute tags. That having been said, the general convention seems to be putting them on top, or if there is a specifically disputed section, to mark that section with the {NPOV-section} tag. My general opinion is that they should be put on top for reasons of clarity. If an article is having an NPOV dispute, then it should be clear to all the readers. If it is at the bottom, than the reader may miss it and have an erroneous asumption on the quality of the article. Regarding the specific article, I have no particular knowledge of the subject, rather I was going through pages with NPOV disputes and trying to fix them up. --CVaneg 16:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God

Unless he provides evidence to the contrary, his addition to God was original research and, as such, isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Also, you don't have to post your reply on my talk page, just his. --brian0918™ 16:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good research! Will come back to you on this over the weekend

[edit] Kevin Baas

Well if the theologians don't know latin, then they shouldn't use latin words. Kevin Baastalk 15:49, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page)

Whoa, now, calm down Kevin Baas... Latin? Who's using Latin? Every word I wrote is good English. Perhaps some have Latin roots, but it is English. It is a linguistic fact that loan words from Latin may develope and take additional, even different meanings once they are accepted into English. It is sophmoric to restrict English usage based on Latin lexicology. Etymologies, while fascinating, instructive, interesting and informative, are NOT the answer... The Meaning of Life, the Universe and all that is not so simple.

It is important that the interpretations of theological statements do not become distorted by historical shifts, such as changes in etymology regarding "omni-" or "virgin". that is the point that i was trying to make. the point is that the original meaning of these things are what is in question, and it is important to preserve them so that a person or a gropu of people (such as an institution or an establishment) cannot change an argument, premise, or assertion that has been shown to be flawed to avoid acknowledging that flaw. Kevin Baastalk 18:20, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Your "allusion" calling God a "pimp" doesn't work if you have to write a paragraph of jargon and two-bit words to explain it... No one will know what you are talking about and merely dismiss you as a bore (if they don't revert your work and go on to ban you...) That sort of provocation does not produce thoughtful work on the Wikipedia. I was merely asking you in good faith if that was really what you wanted to do. But you go on and continue in that vein, making apparent your POV.

I am not discussing my POV. I am making a point that avoiding topic areas because they are stigmatized or taboo, is an obstacle to critical thinking and getting at the truth of the matter. The taboo-ness or lack of taboo-ness regarding a pattern of sexual behavior does not affect the antropological probabilities, and so neither should it affect the references to such possibilities in a discussion. So, neither, does the degree to which a particular interpretation of a word such as "omni-" supports or does not support a given argument, affect the validity of that interpretation. Kevin Baastalk 18:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

No, I don't know that Mary the mother of Jesus of Nazareth was a "slut"... I do know that that is one of many divergent theories about her and I recognize your explanation of "Virgin" as just one of the trendy and popular fads going around about Mary - and it doesn't particularly bother me. Scholars know that there is something odd about Jesus' birth/parentage and so your calling him a "bastard" doesn't upset me either. Do you know the theories about Mary being raped by a Roman soldier? That's a real old one... But it's neither here nor there as far as the God article goes. There could be an appropriate spot to go into that stuff...could be interesting...But it's really tangential our discussion.

Actually, the most trendy and popular fad is also the wildest theory: immaculate conception. I won't call scholarly research "fad" insofar as it is scholarly research; records and historical evidence are not ephemereal.

I really thought that you might have had some good ideas that would be useful in the God article: See how I interpreted your thought in neo-classical, process theological terms... However, you have shown that you have an ax to grind against traditional Christianity. I am not a Christian myself, and am interested in the God article from a post-Christian perspective. Your particularizing of God to merely a Christian concept does not interest me and seems to be derailing the discussion. Please reconsider the direction in which this seems to be going. All the best, Emyth 17:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are reading too much of your own suspicions into what I say, and I do not appreciate being a straw man and a victim of bad faith. Kevin Baastalk 18:21, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

You really didn't have to put this all here, I've read it all on your talk page already. Since you don't seriously address the points I've brought up. Since you are determined to make this nasty. Since you are dodging taking responsibility for your POV. Since you do not recognize scholarly citations, nor give any for your assertions. Why should I continue to talk with you? Strike one... Emyth 22:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SDA Article Improvement

Hey Emyth, I am quite keen to make the SDA article more scholarly and balanced and would like to work with you to achieve this, send me an email (reverse): ua.moc.oohay(AT)nosobsggib Cheers, --Fermion 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandeism

If there's only 38 original hits in Google (and most of them are mirrors of Wikipedia), then it's probably original (or made-up) research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please place {{vfd}} on Pandeism and explain on the VFD page your findings in detail about who has been spreading "pandeism" throughout Wikipedia. I'll read your comments there and help remove this nonsense from other articles. You must clearly explain that "pandeism" is an extreme minority (of 1 person?) viewpoint, original research, and doesn't belong within 10 miles of Wikipedia. --brian0918™ 19:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you search google for: pandeism -wikipedia, you only get 29 results, and nearly all of those seem to be based completely on Wikipedia content as well. (several of these dont seem to have been filtered out by the -wikipedia though they should have been) --brian0918™ 19:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pandeism and please add your vote. --brian0918™ 21:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Pandeism article is now fully rewritten based on verifiable sources. -- 8^D gab 15:08, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Hi, in response to your query, I've decrypted and moved the Pandeism discussion to its own page, User:2412/Archive - Pandeism discussion. I don't what possessed me to encrypt it in the first place - I was thinking that anyone who really wanted to see it could look on the page history anyway. -- 8^D gab 20:07, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

  • Frankly, I'm not exactly sure who Orlando Alcántara Fernández is ("Orlando Alcántara" gets about 150 unique Google hits; strangely enough, "Orlando Alcantara" without the accent gets about 200, but they're completely different; Cristorly gets about 130, mostly in Christian discussion forums). The important thing, to me, is his comment about Spinoza. You see, almost a decade ago, my humanities professor said that Giordano Bruno and Baruch Spinoza were properly classified as pandeists, not as pantheists. Now, I don't know how many people are very familiar with Spinoza, but this Orlando Alcántara stated in a webpost that "Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation."[1]. In January of 2004, one Roncelin de Fos posted a discussion which states that "The labeling of Spinoza's philosophy as "pantheism" by the Church was meant more as an invective and indictment than a true analysis of his writings. It was really a variant of Deism -- a "pandeism," if I may."[2] Now, granted the second guy sounded like he was "coining" the word, but since I'd heard it used before in exactly that context, I can't help thinking that he got it from somewhere - kind of like if someone came up to me and said, "I've invented a device with four legs supporting a flat level surface -- a "table" if I may." There are no references saying "Thomas Jefferson was really a pandeist" or "Augustine was really a pandeist" or "Socrates was really a pandeist" - but I have three (these two and my professor) who have specifically identified Spinoza as a pandeist, and I find that a bit tight for a coincidence. -- BD2412 thimk 00:12, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    • Hi. You mentioned going to the Harvard library to look up the Anacalypsis? While you're there, could you have a look at Madame Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine? My bet is that she discusses pandeism as well. What did you have in mind, with respect to a comparison to the Flat Earth Society? -- BD2412 thimk 08:17, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

[edit] Ramakrishna

dear emyth, sorry for i could not make much contribution to the said article. I agree that the article has not yet become encyclopedic. People are raising many questions in the talk pages, but are remaining anonymous. Sincerely speaking, as far as kali's child is concerned, one should read Tyagananda's book and then see what Kripal has written in its reponse. It is difficult to translate original bengali and the connotation that they carry into english. For example Sri Ramakrishna used, "kamini-kanchan" literally , women and gold as obstactles for god realisation. For reasons, Swami Nikhilananda has translated them into English as women and gold, but has put them under quotes. But in India, if you ask, religious people will say that it implies "lust and greed". There are several such ambiguities based on which kripal seems to have written his thesis.

As far as other content is concerned, even that is not concise and clear. If somebody says sri ramakrishna was "a man of God" (if it means saint) i dont know how it can be termed blatant. So how do i prove/disprove it ? Article on Jesus or Muhammad likewise will say "the son of the God" and "the messanger of the God" ...

Could you request User: Swami Vimokshananda to write an article and replace it. I will also request him. Sri Ramakrishna and Vivekananda are considered as great luminaries of indian renaissance etc. As somebody mentioned, there is no mention of Sri Sarada Devi which is also very ridiculous. I really appreciate your endevour Ramashray

[edit] Celestial Marriage

Great stub! We could use your participation in the thriving, mature, and vibrant WP:LDS project! Tom Haws 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genesis 1

Something about this article strikes me as not quite right. Any thoughts? -- BD2412 talk 01:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, I've delinked the above, as it redirects to an unrelated article. See Genesis 1 instead. -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

The only problem I have with your reference for Walter Martin is that you put in a 1985 book when the text refers to the 1950's.

The other reference however is not really valid as a source for Wikipedia. It seems heavily like Original Research. Its claims are based on selective quotes. It doesnt' portray the entire position of the church at the time it was written, ie. most of the quotes are from the 1800's. I do not see it as being a prominent resource that still claims the church is a cult. Maybe it has to be there for a POV to oppose the other view, but due to its lack of depth, and the OR possibilities, it seems to be ready to go. Ansell 22:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ansell... The Kingdom of the Cults is Walter Martin's great book on this subject and the issue of SDA cult/non-cult status. It went through several editions (including the present one further edited by Ravi Zacharias) and the only edition I could find in the Harvard Divinity School library was the 1985 edition... That's the only citation I could provide. I'll try to check it out and see if it indeed contains the judgements that Martin made re: SDAsm. Regarding the second citation... It's really a link to a website that illustrates the criticism being refered to in our article. Of course it's "original research" ...but that is appropriate when it's outside the Wikipedia. It's the Wikipedia that's not supposed to be original research, not our sources (unless I'm thoroughly confused...but that wouldn't make sense... Somebody has to do original research and publish it. We report on their work and point to it...that's the point of an encyclopedia.) I think that we need to point to something if we refer to it in our article. Something available on the web is even better. Emyth 23:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)