User talk:Mrund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mrund, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Contents

[edit] Sources?

Hi. Which sources did you use for your recent additions to the history section in Sweden? Would you mind inserting a reference? I'd be happy to help you with the formatting, if you are unfamiliar with it. Thanks, henrik•talk 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question, and one that I have trouble answering. You see, I'm a full-time research scholar in Swedish archaeology, and I'm writing the whole thing from the top of my head. It's my stock in trade. If there is any one point that you find controversial, then maybe I can dig up a reference.
I hope you will believe me when I say that the 2000 book about Sweden before 1520 that was used to reference the sections I've replaced is very badly out of date, indeed was out of date already when published. The author's name is entirely unknown in Swedish prehistoric archaeology.
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, I suspected something like that. But perhaps there are some reference works you could add? Not every sentence need detailed sourcing. Pointing a paragraph to a relevant chapter in a book is enough. An important, if secondary, role of an encyclopedia is to point interested readers towards more detailed (and perhaps more reliable) sources. That's why it is useful to source even non-controversial material.
The main article, Prehistoric Sweden could also use some loving, if you're up to it. :-) henrik•talk 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I could add a section for "Further reading" at the end. That's what I'd do if I were writing for a print encyclopedia.
Prehistoric Sweden presents a little problem. It redirects to an article titled Scandinavian prehistory, which is a heavily error-ridden article about Swedish matters that someone has made slight attempts to expand into a pan-Scandy version. I'd prefer to re-name it back to Prehistoric Sweden and then go to work on it. Whatcha say? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a bit different than print encyclopedias in that we do not (generally) have expert writers like yourself. People trust traditional encyclopedias because they are expected to select trustworthy editors - Wikipedia allows experts and non-experts alike, so the text must be able to stand on its own without the implied authority of the writer. This is why we request more specific sourcing than a print encyclopedia.
I'm afraid the coverage of Scandinavian and Swedish history on wikipedia is very spotty. A few more modern and narrow topics are fairly good, but the overview articles are a mess, so it's great to see someone with real knowledge here. As for the prehistory, please - Go ahead! henrik•talk 10:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to Sweden

Hi there. I noticed your recent edit to Sweden. [1]. Since you removed sourced statements with unsourced statements, could you please use the talk page of the article to explain? Thank you. --mceder (u t c) 09:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comment on Talk:Sweden

Yes of course you can improve the separate article on Prehistoric Sweden. However, even if you don't feel the need to add citations, please remember that this is a Wikipedia, and anyone can add or remove things you have written. If you reference everything, it will be easier to keep the article in a good state, to improve on it, and to check the facts. But if you want write, just write... / Fred-J 15:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric Sweden

Hi again. Perhaps you could just start to write a new article? I have blanked Prehistoric Sweden for you, so you can start writing it there if you want to. / Fred-J 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Falun Gong. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. TigerShark (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reprimand accepted. I didn't know about that rule. The three Falun Gong devotees I was edit warring with took turns undoing my edits. This gives them nine legitimate undo chances per 24 hours. I could of course recruit friends to do the same, but I'd really rather not. My suggested brief addition to the Falun Gong article is intended as to be constructive, not vandalism. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You have shown your unwillingness to engage in discussion on the talk page, as well as resorting to ad-hominem attacks, as you have just repeated here ("Falun Gong devotees"). You have been continually asked to seek consensus on your edit and make sure they are compatible with the cited wikipedia policies. There is a whole section in wikipedia policies on self-published sources which demonstrates that Randi doesn't qualify as a reliable source for commenting on Falun Gong--he can write what he wants on his site. There's another whole section about how minority claims should be handled quite carefully--his views are firmly in the minority. Because you can put a reference tag on it doesn't mean you can insert it as you wish. Wikipedia should be edited by consensus. I sought compromise on this edit but you have forged ahead with the edit warring, and yourself said that you intend to be stubborn about it. I'm not sure how you expect others to respond to this kind of thing. It doesn't leave others much option when you refuse to engage in discussion. There are clear points related to policies which have been brought up which are outstanding. You have left brief notes in response, questioning the intentions of other editors, rather than responding to the arguments. You have reverted twice as many times as you should have, there is still no consensus, there are still outstanding policy issues. If you accept being reprimanded, does that mean you are willing to engage in discussion about your editing, so we can do things in accordance with wikipedia policies?--Asdfg12345 06:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly invited everybody to comment on and improve my suggested critical additions. Only once has someone half-accepted the invitation by stripping out the criticism from my addition and padding the remainder with praise. I have not touched any existing pro-FG or anti-Chinese-government material in the article. I am convinced that your intentions in this case, Asdfg, are not the ones you advance in public. You are clearly attempting to hide your pro-FG agenda behind a smoke screen of misapplied Wikipedia formalism. Your unwillingness to accept James Randi as a relevant commentator on the issue is a blatant example of this. I, on the other hand, write under my true name with a clearly stated skeptical agenda that is not confined to issues about FG. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, you cannot use Wikipedia to promote or endorse a "skeptical" agenda, or any other ideological point of view. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. User:Tomananda and User:Samuel Luo were permanently banned from Wikipedia, because the arbitration committee found that Tomananda "has engaged in edit-warring and attempts to use Wikipedia for ideological struggle and advocacy", and Samuel Luo "has engaged in edit-warring to promote a viewpoint consistent with his outside activism". [2] If your sources don't qualify, if you attempt to give undue weight to viewpoints that have been largely debunked by the relevant academic community, and if you insist on argumenta ad populum and biased personal viewpoints ("The issue is clouded by the fact that anyone who criticises the movement is usually soon accused of supporting the Chinese government"), you are directly violating certain non-negotiable policies, and of course we are concerned and will stop you from doing that. You have never even tried to back up your edits by referring to the policies, and you have categorically ignored our analyses on your misdemeanours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha, Olaf, and you have no agenda here? For Dawkins' sake, man, on your user description page you say "my chief interests and contributions are related to the horrendous persecution of Falun Gong practitioners"! You're really too much. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You neglect a crucial difference here. I am operating within the boundaries of Wikipedia-qualified sources and clearly explicated policies and guidelines. I do not approve of edits just because they're pro-FLG, and I don't disapprove of edits just because they're anti-FLG. As long as the material is verifiable and originates from a reliable source (not what I think is reliable, but what is reliable from the perspective of Wikipedia), I am absolutely in favour of consensus-seeking, balanced approach. You, on the other hand, have blatantly neglected the criticism that has been presented against your edits, even though we have made numerous references to appropriate policies. What you ought to do in that situation is to find "legal" means to defend your edits, but you have not done that. Wikipedia is not an anarchy.
James Randi is a partisan skeptic, not an expert of Falun Gong. He can write whatever he wants on his website, and his devotees will probably share his point of view without any further fact-checking. Have a look at Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources (emphasis not mine): "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking." James Randi's POV on Falun Gong is a fringe view in the academic community. Serious Falun Gong researchers, such as David Ownby (sinologist, historian of Chinese popular religion & Chinese millenarianism at the University of Montreal), have completely debunked the claims of such people. They represent the academic mainstream, and their writings are actually based on something concrete, not personal biases and airy-fairy opinions. If you find significant publications, preferably peer-reviewed journals, criticizing Falun Gong - that's fine, and we can move on to evaluating their place and weight in the article. But now you appear out of the blue, pushing unacademic personal blogs, and even trying to make room for their stuff in the introduction of an article that has been under close scrutiny and serious debate for years. In the light of all this, how do you expect to come across as a reasonable, rational person? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A note for you Martin. I understand that you are someone with a predisposition to suspecting or thinking ill of anything like Falun Gong, and that you inherently feel that the whole notion of a spiritual cultivation practice is somehow vacuous, fake, or stupid. Falun Gong doesn't charge any money, it isn't an organisation, and there's no membership. It's a set of exercises with a strong spiritual/moral component. They're free, along with the books, on the internet. I have benefited hugely from it, in obvious and not obvious ways. I used to do a fair amount of drugs on a regular basis, and I was pretty much reliant on marijuana and alcohol, also on a regular basis. Then there are other things like watching pornography regularly, arguing with people, and a lot of generalised things like not really caring much about people around me but just absorbed in my own things, basically just selfishness, plus a lot of other stuff, like personal anxiety and whatever else. I don't do drugs, drink, etc. any more, which is good, and am pretty clearheaded generally, and I have a clear understanding of what I live for. I have a lot more self-discipline, and self-discipline is in fact one of the best and most important lessons I have learnt since practicing Dafa.

There are also other, deeper issues, you could say metaphysical concerns, which I feel have been addressed. I am studying philosophy as part of my university degree, and I have always considered questions such as the purpose of human life, the meaning of the good life, and all these other things, and read a lot of books in relation to these things. I also read a lot about paranormal phenomena, altered states of consciousness, mysticism, and so on. I also felt Falun Gong responded well to my previous thoughts and questions about these things. In the end, it has basically just taught me to try to be a good person. I think it's quite a good thing. Practicing Falun Gong is entirely a personal affair.

I meet on a regular basis with other practitioners who live near me, to read the books together, discuss them, and do the exercises. Now with the persecution, we also meet up to set up a poster-display or whatever, hand out flyers. We communicate through email. It's all quite simple. You must think the supernatural element is very ridiculous, and to you this deserves some ridicule. I know many people who share similar views. The core of Falun Gong is Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance, and it is saying, in my view, that the essence of human life lies in these principles, and the point of it is to align with these principles--that essentially human life is not meant for being human, but for assimilating to these principles. There's more to it than that.

All these supernatural things are inevitable products of a certain ontology, consequences of other more basis propositions, this is the best way I can put it in a few words. There's nothing wrong with that, and people can believe what they like, even if it didn't have any rationale at all. That shouldn't be slapped with a label, and you needn't think ill of that. You obviously already didn't like Falun Gong before you came here, so I hope that I am unable to take the credit for your recent comments.

The reason for the stern resistance you have met with has mostly been explained to you: failure to adhere to wikipedia policies. Obviously you are not satisfied with this as an explanation, however, and want to know why I would bother citing them and challenging you. Don't think I can give a quick answer. I have my reasons, and my intentions are quite good. Personally, I don't give a hoot what you do, so I'm not spending my time here out of some personal feelings, whims, or desires. It's not simple to explain important and involved ideas quickly to a stranger with some text. My motivations are wholly good, and they are not driven by any personal benefit. Besides this, I think it's a cop-out to question my motivations when you've got a mountain of unaddressed wikipedia policy issues, and when I've only ever cited them and demanded you stick to them. This should actually be the focus, shouldn't it? But since you asked, and I do value what you say, and I do not want you to hate Falun Gong, I spend 20 minutes writing this to you. I'm not sure if it has helped answer any unresolved issues, or brought you a greater understanding. I would only bother writing all this if I thought it was going to be useful. I can answer any questions you have about Falun Gong--there's a start. I'm quite a friendly person. I don't know what your problem is, in the end. Fundamentally, Falun Gong is peaceful, and teaches people to be good. I should ask you why you are bothering to attack a peaceful spiritual practice?--Asdfg12345 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you asked: I believe that you are sadly deluded, that your supernatural beliefs are crazy and that movements such as FG, Raelianism, Scientology, Christianity, Islam etc. are harmful. I think people would be much better off living in the real world than in these fantasies. Thus I think Wikipedia articles should not consist of one-sided religious propaganda. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
One question, Dr. Rundkvist: is your own scientific research also based on self-published material that has never undergone peer review? If not, why do you expect to get away with that in Wikipedia? If yes, your university system must be quite different from ours. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my research tends to be based on stuff people have dug out of the ground. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
...using fringe theories that have been largely debunked and opposed by archaeologists at large? Right. You don't do that. If you really want to improve your position in this debate, why on earth don't you dig up (pun intended) some quality sources that we have no way contesting so easily? I mean, I'm not doing this because I would want to hide something. I seriously think a balanced Falun Gong article is in the interests of everybody, and I would really want to see it pass a Wikipedia community review and eventually become featured. That will never happen if the editors cannot take challenges and provide answers to those who are concerned. These pages have seen enormous disputes in the past, and it was exactly because people couldn't familiarize themselves with the policies and guidelines, back up their claims, validate their sources with policy references and stick to reliable high-quality material. It was a huge mess, and the arbitration case was very time-consuming. We don't want to go through all that again. We want third-party research against third-party research, not first-party opinions against second-party opinions. There is absolutely no other way to get forward. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍
I advise you to take a look at the footnotes in Wikipedia article on Bahá'í Faith. Now, I'm not really a big fan of that particular religion. Nevertheless, I can see that the article is very good and relying on high-quality research, even though the faith itself might be controversial, and its adherents are even persecuted in many Islamic countries. In fact, this article is featured. In order to make the Falun Gong articles featured, we need a similar approach. The sources must be of equivalent quality, and other criteria on featured articles must be met. That is our sincere wish. If you can contribute to that goal, you will make a good editor, regardless of your personal POV. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for edit warring on Falun Gong

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

TigerShark (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous advice

I've decided to reply to your mail on-wiki, so that we can show we working as above-board as possible here. You should know that there's a report about your blog post on the administrator's noticeboard. (You've probably seen the same post at Talk:Falun Gong, but there are some different comments here.) With that in mind, it's probably best to present ourselves in the best manner possible. I believe that you're on the right side of this debate, and so we should be able to fix things by sticking to policies. I do believe that policy is on our side here; the problem has just been that the article is heavily protected by pro-FG editors. Wider interest should help rectify the situation.

If you haven't already, I'd strongly recommend you read up on the core policies of Wikipedia. Most important to this situation are Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Related to your blog posts is the guideline on canvassing. I'd also like to point out the page on single-purpose accounts, which I believe applies strongly to many of the Falun Gong defenders you've faced. The problem with such editors is that they're here for the specific purpose of defending/promoting FG, rather than building an encyclopedia and following its policies where they might lead. I can see this behavior in how their trying to abuse policies such as undue weight to segregate all criticism to a separate article.

As for some more specific advice, I'd recommend you try to back off on reverting a bit. For instance, in the recent case of wikilinks, it's not really worth fighting over. Here, I'd actually lean towards leaving some of those in. The purpose of links is to lead readers to other articles they might be interested in, not to simply define words for them. For instance, when a religion page talks about morality, readers might be interested in going to that page so they can see comparative views on it - not simply to read up on the definition.

In general, edit warring doesn't do any good. What's best, if a conflict comes up, is to present your case clearly on the talk page and talk it out there. If you can prove that any reversions of your edits would be in bad faith, then the reversions likely won't occur. If they do, then you'll likely find support in reverting them.

As I mentioned before, off-wiki canvassing is generally frowned upon. If you believe an article would benefit from neutral eyes, then there are a few appropriate paths you could take. For a look at the article as a whole, you can request Peer review. For answers to a specific issue, you can file a request for comment. If there are behavioral problems involved, you can post a message at the administrators' noticeboard.

I think that's enough for now. Good luck, and thank you for your efforts to help improve Wikipedia. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have much to learn. I have learned only in the past few days what a social thing Wikipedia can be. I am aware of NPOV. But arriving alone in FG land I believed that the only realistic chance I had of making the article slightly more NPOV was to leave all the propaganda untouched and simply add material with a different perspective. I believe I have now learned a way to change the article in a much more fundamental way.
As for "canvassing" on my blog, I was not aware that this would be frowned upon, and I did it in the most public way available to me -- far more so than in this conversation, actually. I believe that the pro-FG guys are coordinating their efforts by e-mail, on-line forums etc. I could have done so too with a bunch of skeptical buddies, and none the wiser. I could also have gone around to the Scientology article and recruited a bunch of skeptics via their talk pages, with much the same results. So the importance of the distinction isn't all that clear to me.
Anyway, I look forward to remaining a productive contributor to all manner of subjects in this encyclopedia, which I use daily.
Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry too much, it doesn't look like you'll be in any trouble for mentioning this on your blog. Wikipedia has a policy about being lenient towards newcomers. However, to be clear, any method of attracting people to an article with the hope that they'll support a particular point of view falls under "canvassing" here, so the fact that the distinction isn't clear to you is simply because there isn't one. The only difference is whether it's visible or not. Private correspondance often goes unreported, and so no one gets in trouble for it, even though it's arguably worse than public messages. There's not much that can be done about that, however.
On this article, it honestly looks to me like it needs a massive rewrite. It's been defended so strongly that all outside views have been stripped out of it. Proper style here would have them placed throughout the article as appropriate, rather than allowing it to simply be a way for FG to describe itself with outside views sequestered. But, a massive rewrite isn't likely to go over well, so we'll have to work gradually. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What is the preferred non-canvassing way to attract a large number of new editors to a defended POV article? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, there are a few options. In addition to those I already mentioned, you could appeal for help at a relevent Wikiproject, such as Wikiproject Religion or Wikiproject China. Just make sure that your request is presented neutrally. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)