Talk:Roza Bal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I suggest to move the information contained in Yuz Asaf over here, as this article is fits here better, in the article on the site. Also, the site is real while the figure of Yuz Asaf and his identification with Jesus is highly questionable. This should also solve the problem of this article being a stub. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, that makes sense... doesn't seem to be any objections... I'm here in Srinagar now, and plan to find this place tomorrow, if I find out anything new I'll be sure to add it... Cacahuate 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity stub?

Moved from the article:

This is not a Christianity stub. The Roman influenced areas of Christianity were never informed of Tomb of Jesus related information (or the information was withheld by the Vatican) so it is only really known about in Eastern branches of Christianity and amongst other faiths of the area. The Roman influenced areas include all Protestant denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.148.93 (205.250.148.93 • contribs) 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The tomb information is, as far as I can tell, unknown in Eastern branches of Christianity, although there are ancient inscriptions indicating their presence in the area. Further study on this is being conducted by a number of individuals from various backgrounds, Fida Hassnain among them. I am myself hoping at some point to discover the viewpoints of the Mar Thoma churches in Kerala, South India, but have been unable to do so yet. BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Wars

Valid research links were removed. I have returned them. There are about 3 concurrent conversations on this topic at Wikipdeia at the moment. It started because not only were resources and citations removed, they were replaced with highly predjudicial and demeaning links. This was initiated by someone who has a past pattern of trashing authors he doesn't agree with. It became neccessary to put a stop to things before they went too far. HighonaTree, I would be grateful if you would leave this alone now. These issues are being taken to Administrative level and I would not want you dragged into it. many Thanks.NewYork10021 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Numerous editors have doubted or denied that these books can be regarded as reliable sources, the only ones arguing otherwise are the single-purpose accounts belonging to Olsson herself and her relative (and now you as a brand-new user). See:

Talk:Yuz_Asaf#Suzanne_Olsson_book

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination)

User talk:R.Tabor

User talk:Kashmir2

User_talk:Dougweller#Self_Published_Books_on_Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yuz_Asaf

As for your veiled threat: [1]

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no veiled threats. You are misinterpreting. "Many" editors did not deny reliablitlity. Only one or two over and over again. By the way, look again at the prior post by Bob Griffin in which he states the research being done by Fida Hassnain and "others' The "Others' include Suzanne Olsson and her books, one of which is co-authored with Hassnain.. NewYork10021 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to carry on here. Let it end now. Let them edit whatever they see fit. The edits and these posts speak for themselves. People can see that and judge the rightness(or otherwise) of how Wiki editors manage information and make decisions here.

SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf "Edits'

Fullstop said at the 'Yuz Asaf' talk page:

Regardless of whether Olsson is reliable or not,... the Olsson book is completely irrelevant as this article is about 'Yuz Asaf' and not whether Jesus survived the crucifixion (which is—in all its numerous facets—what Olsson's book is about). Misusing this article to spin-up that subject is coatracking/OR. She can appear somewhere on WP (e.g. in one of the numerous Jesus articles), but not here. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)end of quote...................

This statement clearly shows lack of understanding of the topic at hand when Wiki editors choose to add or delete things. In Hassnain's and my own books are whole chapters devoted to seeking links between the names Yuz Asaf and Jesus as the entire premise is that Yuz Asaf IS Jesus who IS buried in Roza Bal tomb. There are only two pages here at Wiki that are relevent to our research, this one, 'Yuz Asaf' and 'Roza Bal', the tomb of Jesus. The editor 'Fullstop' is totally ignorant of the topic and should not be making editing decisions here. But no worries, Fullstop, as you can see, our names have been wiped off almost every page at Wiki since these editing wars started.

G.Rutter has been editing the 'Yuz Asaf' page since April 2005. He has taken it upon himself to make most all decisions regarding the edits to this page. Look at the Talk history and it quickly becomes evident that he also doesn't have a clue what is relevent. Many lengthy discussions and arguments have erupted because he clearly does not understand the topic at all. 'High on a Tree' is an editor on the "Roza Bal' page who also has no knowledge of the subject and makes very poor choices in choosing how to edit that page. It has become his 'pet project' and he will edit as he darn well sees fit, whether it helps the page or not.

To Dougweller, first I am posting under my own name. I didn't have a name at Wiki before this. Second, this is about contention over removing books and sources. That is what started all this, don't you recall? Legitimate sources and links were removed and replaced with just one negative and highly inflammatory article by some fringe group represented by just one individual. Yet you all, as editors, allowed this to happen. It is shocking. Getting that straightened out with Paul Smith, aka Wfgh66 has gradually led to all traces of my name being stricken from Wiki. Self-promotion? Or self-defense?

While erasing me you were allowing ridiculous material to remain. Saying I was deleted because I was "self-published" was grossly unfair because several self-published books remained even fictional books, that none of you 'editors' questioned. The reason 'Roza Bal Line' remained at the 'Roza Bal' page was because I didn't put it there, nor remove it because I didn't know the rules. I am not a Wiki editor.

As you were explaining the rules I realized you were allowing many others to circumnavigate them. On this page and the 'Roza Bal' page have appeared self-published fiction, links to articles about Billy Meier and his Jesus information gathered from aliens, and even a self-promotional book about a man's travels to Kashmir. Such resources were all that remained while you were targeting me for what you refer to as "fringe" self published fiction.

Finally Doug, you worded something in a way that suggested my books were 'fiction' and that was the end of the discussion. My books and Hassnain's books were immediately deleted by another editor listening in on our conversation. We, meaning Professor Fida hassnain and myself, only research Yuz Asaf, Roza Bal, and Jesus in India after the crufcifixion. We present as much research from India as we can find in India to support these views. People who write other books, and make films on the topic depend upon our material as a reliable source because they themselves cannot get to India or Kashmir....and if at all, then only for a few days. There are two independent film productions coming out in next few weeks, and a dozen more already out there that have consulted us for accurate information about this topic. Articles about our research appear regularly around the world. Fortean Times, Times of India, and several Italian, Russian and Scandinavian newspapers and magazines have peer reviewed our books in the past. I know there are many more based upon the emails I get, but I don't happen to keep records of them.

We never get royalties or pay from others. We have no money to show for all this effort. We think it is important to keep the research in the forefront (and as hassle-free as possible) in anticipation this will not only help protect these sites but will promote the DNA and archaeological research, things we have worked tirelessly for.

Of course I personally feel targeted here now, and I feel you have acted unfairly and unjust. You have attempted to trash my name, my work and valid contributions. You refer to them as "fringe" and fictional, and not worthy to appear on these pages. I am saddened by such words and by your lack of understanding about this topic.

I wont post here again. I just wanted to leave this message for all those who come here to read about Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. I personally do not believe any of the Wiki editors in this situation have acted fairly or understood what they were/are editing. On that note, and with a sense of sadness and regret over your handling of these issues, I shall close this discussion.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When Suzanne Olsson told me some books were self-published, I checked, found out they were, and removed them. She put them back. Not having time to carefuly scrutinise every book is not the same as 'allowing'. I definitely did not call Olsson's books fiction and have tried my best to explain to her how Wikipedia works. I clearly failed. This is all clearly 'fringe' by Wikipedia standards, though. Doug Weller (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:"... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above)....as per removal of relevent sources and replace with sources of highly speculative and dubious agendas...

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

–Jimmy Wales [6]SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)