User talk:Lucyintheskywithdada/archive1

Brahma matters - a way forward?

After reviewing the situation I've come to a few conclusions:

• The process initiated by User:Bksimonb against you, which I have closed, was done in bad faith to further one side of a dispute.
• Your first edit was on 21 December and your first edit to the article in question on 26 December, with summary "reverted to pre-protected version/ BKWSU Internet PR Team up to its usual", suggests a prior knowledge of the area. As such it is fair to conclude you are one of the previous disputants.
• Several of the people on the talk page appear to be acting in concert.
• As WP:SOCK (on this side) and WP:MEAT (on the other) are treated as the same violation of the same policy, rather than block everybody, I'd like to see a sane approach to this matter resulting in an end to the conflict which has resulted.

In order to start moving forward, I think there should be a few clear ground rules:

• Firstly, let's clear up the identity issue. If you are LWachowski (which I think likely), and this is the only account from which you are editing and you intend to continue using this as your only editing account, then you are not in technical violation of WP:SOCK. I note that the accounts identified in the initial sock report were used non-concurrently. This can be a breach of WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny though and I think that's why your accounts were blocked. However, if you do create sockpuppets at a later stage in order to further your position in a dispute, you would most likely be banned.
• Secondly, the edits. What is the rationale for the changes? What I would suggest doing is creating a sub page in your user space - eg User:Lucyintheskywithdada/Proposed Brahma edits or somesuch, listing out any contentious sections you want removed and on what basis, and anything you want to add and on what basis. Please avoid making any strong statements on this page, just be factual - e.g. "This section is sourced from x which is an unreliable source. The information at x reliable source contradicts it - see links here and here." or "This is fair critical commentary sourced from x (link or reference that someone can check up) and should be reinstated." or whatever the rationale might be.
• Thirdly, no personal attacks. The other party has a declared conflict of interest - he did so himself at the ArbCom decision which is at the centre of all this. The letters "BK" appear in his username. Therefore, it is not necessary to continually press the point - in fact it would look far better for you if you did not.

I am an admin with no special powers, and I have no history in the article or the subject - I am much more interested in ending this dispute, weeding out any original research, point-of-view violations or unreliably sourced material in the article, and getting it to encyclopaedic standard and off protection. Once it is up to that standard, it will be much, much easier to decide what is right and what is wrong for a casual admin looking through trying to sort out some report alleging every sin in the book from one or both sides.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to raise them on my talk page. Orderinchaos 08:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Orderinchaos's suggestion about creating a subpage and then getting comments is an excellent idea. Also, I'll move your questions to me and my answers here. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Hi,

In order to establish goodwill. I asked on the page and I would like to ask here again, specifically;

• a) which complete books and papers are you relying on for information?

Websites don't really count. I would like to make specific references to illustrate my point but if you have not read the materials, there is little point.

Go ahead and reference the books/articles you want. If I need to I'll hunt them down and find them. I have already downloaded articles like Julia Howell's on my computer.

• b) what is the length and depth of your own direct involvement with the BKWSU?

I have no involvement in the group and had never heard of it before coming across it in a request for comment on Wikipedia. I'm interested in metaphysics so it is why I looked at it.

If we look at your first revisions, it appears personally motivated and your comments on the original first paragraph are not tenable. There is nothing POV in it. It is short and factual. You can argue whether it is either right or wrong but otherwise please point me out the "POV"?

If you believe this, take one point at a time and let's discuss it on the talk page, not here. Others can chime in and we can build consensus.

The problems with your first two edits is that they are factually wrong.

Again, take one fact at a time on the talk page and let's hear what other people have to say. If they agree with you then there will be consensus.

• a) the sandeshputris (and others) were not channelers, they were trance messengers or individuals "given gifts of divine visions"

This issue of mediums versus channelers came up before. Please discuss on talk page and let's get consensus there. This seems like a reasonable point.

• b) the problems with the local community did not start off "due to the elevated status" (the community had been going for 5 years without any major problems and was even spoken well off), they started off because of marital problems, specifically relating to Lekhraj Kripalani's taking his own daughter back and other women refusing sex to their husbands and issues relating to child protection. Those are the historical facts recorded in the court proceedings.

Again, let's talk about this on the talk page.

The difference between the Wikipedia and the Britannia is that the Britannia has a 200 year plus history, uses recognized experts in each field, dedicated reference and copy editors, and proper academic peer review. Yes, most of those primary experts will be practising in the field they are editing about and have direct experience.

Just like in Wiki! You have some experts (pro and con) and neutral editors for tone. This is great that orderinchaos is involved because now there are two neutral Wiki editors with no affiliation with the group.

Thanks --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

how about you?

Parts or all of these...

1. Beit-Hallahmi, Benjaminin (2003). Apocalyptic Dreams and Religious Ideologies: Losing and Saving Self and World. PSYCHOANALYTIC REVIEW, VOL 90; PART 4, 403-439. ISBN 0-304-35592-5.
2. Babb, Lawrence A. (1987). Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0706925637. “
3. Lalrinawma, V.S. (2003). The Liberation of Women in and through the Movement of the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris, ISPCK. Cambridge Press, Delhi, 13. ISBN 81-7214-771-6.
4. Reender Kranenborg. Brahma Kumaris: A New Religion?. Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR). Retrieved on 2007-07-18.
5. Nesbitt, Eleanor; A. Henderson (April 2003). "Religious Organisations in the UK and Values Education Programmes for Schools". Journal of Beliefs and Values, 24 (1): 75-88.
6. Lochtefeld, Ph.D., James G. (2002). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism Vol. I, entry "Brahma Kumaris". Rosen, New York. ISBN 0-8239-3179-X.
7. Wilson, Bryan; Eileen Barker, James Beckford, Anthony Bradney, Colin Campbell, George Chryssies, Peter Clarke, Paul Heelas, Massimo Introvigne, Lawrence Lilliston, Gordon Melton, Elizabeth Puttick, Gary Sherpherd, Colin Slee, Frank Usarski (1999). in Bryan Wilson: New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415200493.
8. Whaling, Prof Frank (2004). Encyclopedia of New Religions; New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, Edited by Christopher Partridge and Gorden Melton. Rosen, New York. ISBN 0-745-95073-6.
9. Hinnells, John (1997). The Penguin Dictionary of Religions, Extract by Eileen Barker. Rosen, New York. ISBN 0-14-051261-6.
10. Howell, Julia Day (2005). in Peter Clarke: Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Routledge, 63-64. ISBN 978-0415267076.
11. Hunt, Stephen J. (2003). Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 120. ISBN 0754634108.
12. Howell, Julia (Sep 1998). "Gender Role Experimentation in New Religious Movements". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37 (3): 453-461.

    Abstract: "In a recent challenge to the view that New Religious Movements (NRMs) are uniformly patriarchal, Palmer (1993, 1994) has brought forward the Brahma Kumaris (BKs) as an extreme countercase. Research presented here confirms her characterization of the BK gender ideology as one of "reverse sex polarity" (casting females as spiritually superior to males) and thereby partially validates her "unsuspected gender role variety" thesis, but shows that this is not associated in Western contexts with an "overwhelmingly female" leadership, as she claimed."

13. Whaling, Frank (1995). "The Brahma Kumaris". Journal of Contemporary Religion 10 (1): 10.

How about you? I expect a complete list. Fair's fair. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the above - the great majority of those look pretty reasonable, although the CESNUR / Introvigne ones (no.4 and no.7) may have to be taken with a grain of salt as they're basically an activist organisation representing new religious movements (including appearing in court on their behalf). I've seen some of their stuff re Scientology a while back and it was in serious la la land. Journals are good as I'm a uni student so can probably get access to those through the usual electronic reference sources or in the uni libraries here in Perth (we've got 5 universities here, including three which expressly cover and research the South and South-East Asian region). Orderinchaos 10:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just been advised by an offline friend that no.9 also fits this category. In quoting academic research we need to be very careful we're not simply picking up educated advocacy. Orderinchaos 20:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting ref at Lovat, Terence J. "Expression of religion in Australia today". Culture Scope, v.58, Apr 1998: 8-12. Given the scope of the article, the coverage is brief although provides some statistics and information on how BK started. Also Arweck, Elizabeth et al: "Common Values for the Common School? Using Two Values Education Programmes to Promote 'Spiritual and Moral Development'" Journal of Moral Education. S 2005; 34(3): 325-342, which reports on values education programmes offered in UK schools written by BK and Sathya Sai Baba. The first is online; the second I should be able to get in dead wood form next Monday when my uni opens. Another full text: "ASC induction techniques, spiritual experiences, and commitment to new religious movements" Julia Day Howell. Sociology of Religion. Washington: Summer 1997. Vol. 58, Iss. 2; pg. 141. Orderinchaos 11:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is a copy and paste off the article.

The only major work about the BKWSU is Dr John Walliss's book (not paper). The only other comparable is Dr Lawrence Babb's "Three Traditions ... etc" which is useful from both a historical and philosophical context as it was written in the 70s after he, as an anthropologist and expert in the Vallyabhacharya tradition of which Kripalani was part, spent time and lived with the Brahma Kumaris. It is "pure BK", useful as it is pre- (how do I put this professionally?) all the developing of marketing fronts targeted at Western expansion.

One thing I take into consideration in my contributions is that the Wikipedia is a "world" encyclopedia and the world includes India. The BKs in India present themselves different, without the artifice I would say, than how the Western BKs do. This is part of problem. The BKs on the Wikipedia are Western BKs and, in my opinion, both want the topic to match the way BK is marketed to the West and are uncomfortable with straightforward documentation or exposures that are commonplace in India. You saw this in Appledell's comments about "not included in introductory course". In the West there is a "soft sell" and a focus on the diffusion products (values education, management training), as some of their beliefs are extreme (the channeling of God himself, exclusivity, the 5,000 cycle and dinosaurs etc); whereas in India, the BKs are by comparison modernish, fairly rational, almost Hindu revisionists and they tend to be entirely out front and, note by the academics, evangelical about their beliefs.

I think the topic should reflect the whole and I would ask you again to consider splitting it into at least; historical development, beliefs and practises. The main article could remain fairly stub-like and the sub-sequent articles be developed in detail. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a cut and paste; you asked which of the books/articles I have read so I went through and picked the ones I have. I will look of the two sources you mention and go through them too.

Btw, I've been civil in my responses to you, despite personal personal attacks and bogus reports. Can you please drop the hostility and defensiveness? For example, no one reverted your version because of "spite"; it was reverted because it wasn't built with consensus and parts read POV. Why are you resisting starting the sandbox? That's a productive way forward. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review

From WP:OWN: "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it." This, this, and this are clear examples of WP:OWN. Please stop. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, Lucy, Lucy, regarding your latest troll here, you know full well I didn't make the edits you ask about above. I simply reverted to a consensus version (consensus with everyone but you) and those changes got reverted too. If you want those changes restored, make them in a sandbox and I'm sure if they're reasonable everyone will agree to them.

Why such resistance to developing a sandbox? If you want to move forward in good faith, start a sandbox and focus on content. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, you just wrote on the BKWSU talk page that you responded about the sandbox. I missed that. Please give the dif or re-explain. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your considerably toned down note on my talk page (for the first time semi-reasonable, though shades of the old Lucy still shone through, ho-hum...)

Like it or not, the current protected version will have to be our base version. You will never get agreement from Bksimonb or Appledell to revert fully to your version and if you do a reversion upon unprotection it'll just be reverted back to this current version again (like what happened this time).

With this in mind, I think that you'll get more of what you want by doing a sandbox of one or of the different smaller articles you propose. Then, edit wars and protections will be prevented and we all can go on to more exciting and productive enterprises. Cleanemupnowboys (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Spiritualism small

Template:Spiritualism small has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Voodoo (other uses)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Voodoo (other uses), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Voodoo. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the tag inserted by CorenSearchBot. If your intent is to put a page at a new location, then please move the page instead of copying and pasting it. For the time being, if that is indeed your intent, then please insert the {{db-author}} on the page to make room for a clean page move. Thank you. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Voodoo (other uses), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G6 Housekeeping. The creator of this page copied and pasted Voodoo instead of moving the page. The edit history has not been transferred.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Please wait until the page is deleted before moving Voodoo (not copying and pasting). I am sorry, but you will have to start from scratch. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Steps to move a page

Okay. I just performed the first step to move a page. You can see it in the edit history of Voodoo (disambiguation) (which is a more appropriate title, more in line with Wikipedia's overall design). It is now ready for you to edit. You could have done it by clicking on move instead of edit this page. Wikipedia would then have simply asked you the new title, and that would have been the end of it.

You can see what I did in the page's edit history (click history).

Now, the page is ready for editing, just like you were doing. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Channelling (mediumistic)

I'm not sure.... I did, however, move all important information, so nothing important was lost. My memory is that the information in Mediumship duplicated it, except for the list. So I made a special article for the list, and merged about a paragraph or so into Mediumship, and edited the lead to include channelling. But I may be mixed up with Medium (spirituality), which is probably where the missing interest in the subject was placed (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lucy. I'm Ed Poor (one of the oldest members of Wikipedia - dating back to 2001).

I'm glad you put back the info on Boopsie and Hunk-ra being based on Ramtha. I discovered afterwards that you are indeed right, and my erasure was awfully hasty. Thanks for fixing my mistake! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Spiritualism small}}

Can you please stop adding this template to completely unrelated articles? Thanks. - ∅ (∅), 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism

I have nominated Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. WebHamster 06:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule - related to removal of tags

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I checked your edit history and noticed that you'd only been around for a few days - I've seen genuine newbies use proper referencing (which is easy to use and is in the relevant tutorials). Your user page also doesn't state that you're a new account of an established user - I'd suggest that you add your previous user name to avoid any confusion. I'm not going to change my vote on the article as I feel that it's basically original research. The best way to save the article from deletion is to keep working on it and demonstrate that it's not original research by citing the comparisons (eg, what sources contain those exact comparisons the article uses?). The AfD process runs for at least a week, so you've got a few days to bring the article up to scratch.

As I've voted on the AfD I'm not the best person to talk to about concerns with another involved editor's conduct - the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment may be of interest. However, you were both clearly in violation of the three revert rule. I don't know what the history is of your relationship with the other editor, but at face value, it's not bad faith to tag new articles as needing to be improved or nominate new articles for deletion. There's no blacklist against you - I might be an admin, but my vote in AfDs carry as much weight as those of new editors and I simply stumbled across this AfD. cheers, --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Underconstruction and/or Template:Inuse might be helpful. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just expanded my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem

I just wanted to address your worry about a bureaucratic blacklist or whatnot -- rest assured that is not the case, as the user involved isn't even an admin. He's just a difficult person. Try not to let it get to you... this a good skill to hone at Wikipedia :) Good luck and watch out for that 3RR, cause it'll creep up on you. If your edits make more sense than the other person's, chances are someone else will come along and back you up anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:56, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Uriah Heep gets around. --WebHamster 08:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And don't worry, Lucy, what you did is not considered by anyone to be vandalism. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:04, 25 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Template:No_idea

If you don't mind me asking, what is the purpose of {{No_idea}}? If it's intended to actually be used in articles, isn't it rather pointy and unhelpful? And if it's intended as a commentary on lazy users, does it not belong in your userspace rather than in the template namespace?

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge about this subject matter, and can't be bothered to research it myself, so I thought I'd ask before trashing your work. Curiously yours, Skomorokh ^confer 12:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your query on my talkpage. Regards, Skomorokh ^confer —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism template

Please stop spamming your Spiritualism template on topics barely related, like ESP, psychics, the SPR, etc.. For the template to be appropriate, the topic should be exclusively or at least predominantly associated with Spiritualism, otherwise it is simply giving WP:WEIGHT to Spiritualism, inappropriately. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Extrasensory perception is a parapsychology term. SPR is psychical research and parapsychology related. "Psychic" has a greater meaning in pop culture and parapsychology than it ever did in Modern Spiritualism. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to discuss it rather than just revert me? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism disambig

Please see WP:DISAMBIG for guidelines related to terms with multiple meanings. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two articles already. As you said, they have different meanings. That's what disambig is for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't misunderstand. I never said WP:OR, and I actually agree with you. There are several meanings for the term "spiritualism". All that means is that we disambig. The separate issue of the templates being put on articles where it is more notable outside of Spiritualism than within is a weight issue. A categorical template is used when the topic is mostly or predominantly about the category. Faith healing isn't. Neither is psychic, ESP, or any of these other articles I removed it from. I left it on articles explicitly related to Spiritualism. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing, an explanation

"Spiritualism" is heavily weighted towards the religious use. If you doubt that, do a simple search. I agree with you that "spiritualism" (little "s") is sometimes used to describe the philosophy related to spirits in general, that's fine, and is pretty much animism but if you have reliable sources that draw a distinction, that's great. I'm not debating any of that with you.

Here's the problem: 1) Your article on spiritualism makes itself out to be the prevailing view of what the term means. That view is debatable when a simple Google search of spiritualism most often doesn't refer to the "animism" use but rather the religious use. Is the term spiritualism weighted to the philosophical use, or it weighted towards the religious movement? Frankly, I don't care. They're different, that's all that matters. When terms have separate meanings, we disambig. You can debate with other editors on which is the more notable use that "Spiritualism" redirects to. But because readers will be confused when they come to Wikipedia looking for information on Spiritualism as a religious movement and find only an article on the philosophy of spirits, there must be a distinction per WP:DISAMBIG, the guideline for resolving such conflicts.

2) You say you're not here to push a point of view, but whether you realize it or not, you are. The template you created says "Spiritualistic" and you claim that is "spiritualistic, as in of the spirit". No it isn't. This is because your links are to "Mediumship, Reincarnation, Channelling (mediumistic), Spirit world, Spirit possession, Seance, Obsession, Spiritualist Church, Faith healing, Fortune-telling". Do you really think that it's appropriate to slap that info box on an article just as related to Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, and so on, as it is to Spiritualism? That's what the spirit article is. It's about all of those. Heck, a couple of hundred years ago Christians were literally burning people at the stake for practicing fortune-telling. Spirit is neutral. Your classification of spirit as "spiritualistic" and listing of terms related to "Spiritualism" is anything but neutral. It is NOT "a part of a Part of a series on Spiritualistic topics". It is a stand-alone, independent article about spirit, just as much "spirit in Christianity" as it is in anything else. This is categorical ownership.

Info boxes (See: Help:Infobox and WP:IBX) is all about categorization. You are asserting the point of view that these articles are best categorized towards, or related to, the links in the info box. That point of view is BS, sorry. Spirit is not best categorized as related to seances, fortune-telling, and the Spiritist Church. You say you're not trying to promote or push that point of view when that is exactly what you are doing when you put that category info box on neutral topics like "spirit". The categorical ownership of spirit is not towards any of those so called related topics. That's the worst kind of POV pushing because it's done on the pretense of being neutral and informative. WP:AGF that you're not doing it on purpose, but it is being done regardless.

As above, the other terms you slapped the info box on are likewise not explicitly related to "spiritualistic topics". By slapping it on "telepathy" for example, you are pushing the point of view that telepathy occurs by the influence of spirits. By slapping it on "ESP", you are pushing the point of view that it is more related to spiritualistic matters than it is to parapsychology. If you really don't want to be considered point of view pushing, you may want to stop inadvertedly pushing those points of view.

On some topics (the one I left them on) the info box is entirely appropriate. The others are "categorical ownership". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I do answer. You just don't want to hear it. What is wrong with the info box? It is non-neutral point of view (see above). I answered that. There is harm in putting it there. What is wrong with your references? You draw unsupported conclusions and synthesize what they are saying as supporting all the other links in the template, like seances and fortune-telling. Those references aren't about that. They're just about beliefs in spirits, not all the other crap in the template. Do you really think those references are talking about fortune-telling, seances, and the like? No, they are just talking about a belief in spirits.

You questioned my "roots" and assume that I'm coming from a post-modern pop culture point of view on this. No, I'm coming from an info boxes define the primary topic category point of view, and your category is not-neutral, and inappropriate for some articles where you're drawing a broad brush. My "expertise" on the matter (I'm very literate on the topic, you'll find) is wholly besides the point when you're trying to give undue weight to a template that links to "Mediumship, Reincarnation, Channelling (mediumistic), Spirit world, Spirit possession, Seance, Obsession, Spiritualist Church, Faith healing, Fortune-telling", topics that are barely related to the articles you're putting them on. "Spirit" is only related to those topics through "spiritualism", big "s" or little "s" it's all a minor view by any account, [1] and you're trying to inflate it as more notable than it actually is by saying, "Oh, it's all spirit and anything that has a belief in spirits is spiritualism according to academics". In a broad sense, you may be right, though academics using that word over other words like animism is a bit dubious. But... It is spiritual-ism by a technical definition. But then you turn around and inflate the technical definition of spiritual-ism with Spiritualism beliefs (like communicating with the dead, seances, and so on). What's worse is that after you do that, you think that's enough to slip it in on mainstream articles like spirit.

POV pushing is wrong. I've got plenty of time and don't mind protecting Wikipedia from it on a daily basis. If you continue POV pushing, I've got plenty of time to pursue it through WP:DR. You're going to have a hard time convincing people that a "Spiritualism"-related template belongs on these articles. I'll be more than happy to demonstrate where every one of your "references" don't say what you're synthesizing. They don't support inflating "Spiritualism" with "spirit". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, here's your world-view in response to your statement that I'm coming from an American point of view on this. No matter where you are, it's a minority view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to think I don't respond directly enough, please see the itemized responses on my talk page [2] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Q & A

(Moved from User_talk:Nealparr)

Why I am going to continue in this Neal is that AGAIN you demonstrate a lack of appreciate of the literature. The word "spiritualism" IS NOT used philosophically with regards spooks.

That is how you use it in your template.

1) Google is weighed (especially as you are using American Google) because Americans have slightly better access to the internet than the Zars or East Africa or Vodun practitioners. A Google search is hardly evidence of emperical science. Try academic papers.

It is a minority view anywhere in the world.[3]

2) There is a clear link to Modern Spiritualism which is what you are discussing. Again only an America bias. Welcome to the rest of the world butting in on your world.

Your template includes a link to Spiritualist Church, and you're saying the template is not related to Modern Spiritualism? Come on.

3) I am not slapping an infobox on unrelated religion, only those obvious connected - BY THE LITERATURE.

The literature does not equate "Spirit" with "Spiritualism". Your literature also does not justify making it the primary category for the page, which is what an info box does.

4) So what do we have? Someone comes looking for "spirit", another person comes looking for "a spirit". One word, two meaning, many effects ... give them a chance to seek out what THEY want not what YOU want to limit them to.

This is done through wikilinks embeded in the page, not in an info box slanted towards a particular point of view. Besides, WP:WEIGHT (part of the non-negotiable NPOV policy) defines how minority views are presented in articles. It is not presented in the way you are presenting it, as a big info box at the top of the page.

5) Regards philosophy, see the debate:

Tamm, J.M. (1979). "Materialism and spiritualism: the dualistic way of Western thinking.". Psychother Psychosom 31 (1-4): 344-9.

Feuerbach, Ludwig Andreas (1863/4). "Concerning Spiritualism and Materialism, 1863/4".

Sellars, R.W. (1951). "The Spiritualism of Lavelle and le Senne". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 11 (3): 386-393.

Yes, some academics use the word "spiritualism" to refer to a belief in spirits. They do not use it as you have been using it to equate that belief along with seances and fortune-telling.'

6) Telepathy, ESP ... well, I would agree that if it works it works between the souls that are the individuals that are engaged in performing. Now, funnily enough, you have dived right into the deep end of the debate between Spiritualist and materialists, e.g. dualistic body and soul POV versus the "we are all meat" POV. Quite rightly, it is an unresolved dispute within philosophy. You ought to read up on it.

• Luckhurst, R. (2002). The Invention of Telepathy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199249628.
• Spencer, W. (2001). "To Absent Friends: Classical Spiritualist Mediumship and New Age Channelling Compared and Contrasted" (PDF). Journal of Contemporary Religion. 16 (3): 343–360. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
• "On Hypothetical Extrasensory Perception (ESP)". Leonardo. 10 (1): 87–88. 1977. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This is again a weight issue. ESP, telepathy, and other paranormal topics are more notable outside of spiritualism than within. Applying spiritualism is pushing the point of view that they are related to the activity of spirits. That's a POV. It's not even the prevailing POV when you read literature that wasn't published in the 1800s.

I think you are being blocked by your own cultural limitations and whatever prejudices you have against religion or spiritualist. You cant deny the debate includes both sides. its there all the way through the academic literature. Its just our POV ... you have avoid putting forward any references or citation to back it up. Check the references Neal. I am going by the references.

Your references do not support your point of view that it's all synthesized and that a belief in spirits takes with it a relation to seances, fortune-telling, etc.

And as to why limit others from broadening their awareness of the phenomena by removing an infobox, or boths ides of the argument? You dont answer. I am not removing the paranormal box. There is room for both.

No there isn't. Info boxes are used to demonstrate the primary category. If you'd like to include a category link at the bottom of the page, someone else can take that up with you, but the info box has a special use.

What does seem to be clear to me is that in America the word spiritualism is generally connected to the Modern Spiritualist Movement. But this is patently not true elsewhere in the world, (where that movement is largely unknown), throughout history or in other disciplines. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, Spiritualism, spiritism, the practices you link to associated with religion, these are all minor things no matter where in the world you are.

People that read references and citations are a minority view on the wiki, sure. So what are you say by referencing adherents.com !?!

That Spiritualism, spiritism, etc. are minority views that don't deserve an info box on these articles. These articles are NOT a part of a series on Spiritualistic topics

I say read the references and citations.

Yes, and? I'm saying they're not saying what you say they are saying. They DO NOT support adding seances and fortune-telling as an info box on "Spirit". Nor do they support a majority view that paranormal topics like ESP and telepathy have anything to do with spirits. I'd be happy to provide you references showing an overwhelming majority feel that ESP and telepathy have nothing to do with spirits.

So, what does this boil down to? Are you say, "there is no soul, there is only science"? Taking a classic materialistic point of view? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to pigeon hole my legitimate complaint that you are inflating a minority view. It's none of your business what I think because it's not relevant to the issue I have with the info box. That said, if you check my contribs, you'll find that I am very open minded and support a neutral point of view on all spiritualism related topics, and am a major contributor to paranormal related topics. None of that has anything to do with the info boxes. They simply don't belong on these articles.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, it is what it boils down to Neal, which is why I ask. Do you believe we are a soul in a body or just meat and electricity?

Are you a spiritualist or a materialist? (I am obviously presuming that you are the latter and hence your wish to categorise phenomenon within science, removing any tarnish of religion. Is that so?)

Try; Winkelman, M. "Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture". Anthropology of Consciousness. 6 (1): 36–37. doi:10.1525/ac.1995.6.1.36. which touches on this area. Ditto, Irwin, H.J. (1993). "Belief in the paranormal: A review of the empirical literature" (PDF). Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. 87 (1): 1–39. Retrieved 2008-01-31.

I will read and go over your comments but a) you are not addressing mine, e.g. individuals searching for either of two "meaning of spirit" ... and b) who is this "majority view" you are talking about? 50 million Brazilian votes with their feet and go to Umbanda, other figures state 30 million in Uruguay and Argentina. And what of the nations that don't make a census? I am just putting the historical and anthropological point of view across ... they are all connected and in the same territory.

I am sorry but your first edit, of moving Spiritualism to Spiritualism (philosophy) was SO off the market that it rang my alarm bells. Yup, better to keep this debate on one page or move it to the relative topic--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You said I better keep this debate on one page or move it to the relative topic. The topic is about your use of the info box. Where the heck am I supposed to move it?

Now, replying to what you said above... Stop asking me whether I believe in spirits. It's none of your business. The only point of view that matters here, not yours, not mine, is the neutral point of view. By definition, that point of view is neither spiritualistic nor materialistic. Whatever my personal views, I'm arguing about your use of the info box, and saying that is NOT neutral. That has nothing to do with my personal views, so stop asking. Better yet, don't talk to me at all unless it is about an article or the info box. I'll be happy to talk to you about that. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressing your recent comments:

"I asked you if you accepted the classical 'mind-body', 'soul-body' split of the Spiritualist (philosophy) or take a purely materialistic position. Essentially pushing all these 'beliefs' into material science."

Wikipedia already has articles on these topics (see Soul and Dualism (philosophy of mind) among others). It does not need a POV fork to cover the "spiritualism" perspective. Whatever is not currently in those articles can be added.

"and yes, that is why I stuck spiritism/animist/spiritualism all the same box so individuals can go to each POV and make their minds up."

That is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Taking a bunch of points of view and drawing your own conclusions that they are inter-related. You may be right, they may all be inter-related. In order for them to all be inter-related as far as Wikipedia is concerned is that synthesis needs to be published in a reliable source for verification. As I stated on the AfD page, your use of the info boxes to promote all of this calls into question whether that is your synthesis (original research) or one supported by the sources. Like I said, I assumed good faith at first, but then became concerned by your "marketing"-like activities. On one hand, you might have something supported by the sources, but your activities call that into question. Then there's the above, Soul and Dualism (philosophy of mind) and other articles already cover this. In the end (which is why I voted Delete), even if there's no reason to suspect a POV fork, there's certainly no need to rehash the same topic from a minor point of view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Be happy to

... but you still don't get it, as evidenced by your continued POV pushing with the info boxes. If you just don't want to talk about it, that's fine. I've wasted more than enough time pointing out how what you are doing is not neutral. If you're just going to be a troll about it, I'll just have to revert the info boxes daily. Seems like less of a waste of time for me and maybe as some other editors come along and point it out to you (several have mentioned it to you already where you're the only one who thinks they belong there), -maybe- you'll stop and think... heh, maybe an info box with links to Modern Spiritualism really doesn't belong on articles that are shared by other categories, especially other religions. In any case, I'm done trying to talk to you about it as you clearly are on some "I have to have my way" thing despite several editors saying it's inappropriate. Just make sure you count your reverts. That's three so far in 24 hours, so fair warning. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno why I'm responding, glutton for wasting time I suppose, but read WP:WEIGHT and consider "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Then consider the prominence of the info box, it's placement, and it's content. Then consider for one single moment the point of view the info box is suggesting related to the article. I'll fill that part in for you. It suggests that the topic of the article is prominently related to "spirits" on paranormal topics, including psychics, telepathy, clairvoyance, ESP, etc. (my complaint). On the spirit article it is suggesting that the topic is prominently related to the Religion of Spiritualism, seances, etc. despite all religions sharing that article (the complaint of Christians, Muslims, etc). The info box is only a neutral info box on articles directly related to spiritualistic topics and which share relations made by the content of the info box. Any other article you put it on, because of it's prominence, assumes the point of view that this is an article about spirits, seances, the Spiritist Church and so on. There is nothing neutral about that, except when the article is actually about those things, uncontroversially. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw, [4], WP:DTTR as the last guy you edit warred with told you. You can't edit war and then take a moral high ground. I made my initial edit, which you reverted, and then two reverts. You made three reverts. Grow up. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring

Hi. If I may suggest that you step back, have a cup of tea and relax a bit. Edit warring is not the way to implement your proposed changes to the articles and it looks like you're very close to violating WP:3RR, a course of action which will lead to your being blocked. Please discuss your changes with the other editors, no more reverting. Dreadstar † 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making uncivll comments about the other contributors such as this, please comment on content, not on the contributor. Dreadstar † 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Dreadstar ... what at all was uncivil about that? (I read it again and if you mean the bit about his American POV, that appears to me to be the academic problem at hand. The rest of the work uses spiritualism more broadly and Modern Spiritualism specifically.

Athon, you blanked Spiritualism and replaced it with a policy page [10] --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"So, please ... apart from your American bias, what is your issue?", accusing someone of having an "American bias" is uncivil. The "page blanking" you are referring to as vandalism appears to be nothing more than a mistake while attempting to re-add the {{synthesis}} tag to the article. Dreadstar † 17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My comments are couched in pleases and thank yous. So how does one politely make such a statement of fact?

In the USA, or Tennessee, one might apply the term spiritualism to Modern Spiritual. The rest of the academic around the world sees it differently and, as stated, refers to it as Modern American Spiritualism by way of clarification. Its a common differential.

The Wikipedia is not American, so what do we do? I am waiting for one single specific comment on the citations I have provided all of which underline a broader interpretation. Even the American authors quoted. Time has moved on, definitions have change as seen. Much more of the world is known. This is the crux of the matter. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone of having bias is not necessarily a statement of fact, and will do little to move the discussion forward because such statements have a tendency to create a hostile environment. It's clearly uncivil. As for what to do next, I suggest reading through Wikipedia:Consensus. You may also want to read through the Wikipedia:Manual of style, particularly sections like WP:ENGVAR. Dreadstar † 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of forty-eight hours for serious disruption across multiple articles. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(Re: your e-mail) I'm not sure what you were talking about. Your report at WP:AN3 brought your disruption to light, if that's what you mean. It is not required that someone file a report against you to be blocked. -- tariqabjotu 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, I have extended this block to indefinite per this commentary; you seem to be an abuser of multiple accounts here to promote an agenda in a way that is not compatible with Wikipedia's policies and norms. The link with indefinitely blocked Lwachowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the final straw. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

After talking with other admins, the block's been commuted back to the original 48 hours. Rather than make a mess of your block log, I'll simply unblock at the appropriate time tomorrow morning Australian time. I don't normally go in to bat for users like this, and I hope I don't have to again - your conduct at the BK article and related has been completely above reproach for a couple of weeks now and I hope you can show the same sort of good faith and behaviour on other areas of the encyclopaedia as well. Orderinchaos 10:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Now unblocked. Orderinchaos 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence.

I must clarify this issue with the wachowski accounts for newcomers;

• I have always been completely open and honest about them and the diffs bear me out.
• I have never used them as sockpuppet accounts. They have never been used concurrently.
• I locked myself out of the first when I forgot a password. see;[5], :::* I started the second and immediately made a note of the change and requested move/change from the correct admin page, see[6].

The names were disallow "because of their similarity to a real person" (which I think was a bit broad as Wachowski is a common name) and not for anything else. Conduct was not the issue. Discussion did not enter into it.

I made another to start editing again and the same individual, who had disclosed in arbcom and talk page that they were the acting internet public representative of the new religious movement I was editing on [7] and who has expended considerable effort as single topic account on the topic, then reported the new account as another sockpuppet account in an attempt to exclude me from editing on his organization's page. I have never been indefinitely banned nor do I have any outstanding blocks against me or sockpuppet accounts.

The page (BKWSU) and editors at that time were also subject to the attentions of an individual that was most definitely indefinitely banned and his proven socks, see IPSOS/GlassFET etc and so the conditions through which I have been are not normal. Those editors have withdrawn, that page has returned to an average stability.

Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Welcome back Lucy, i was getting worried about you. --Cult free world (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism (philosophy)

has been moved to your userspace per your request. It is located here. Thanks, Keeper | 76 15:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Happy editing, Keeper | 76 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Talk:Spiritualism (philosophical) and Materialism

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Spiritualism (philosophical) and Materialism, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Spiritualism (philosophical) and Materialism is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Spiritualism (philosophical) and Materialism, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kay

OK, if you say so. Certainly looked like it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism related pages

I made my observations on the article talk pages and anything else would be redundant. Feel free to disagree there and make your cases, but please refrain from comments about me in particular as those too are redundant. I don't think I have anything else to add, and am passing it off to other editors, but if I feel the need to add anything, it'll be at the article talk pages. Please only use my talk page for sending me a note about something you'd like me to reply to elsewhere. Thank you. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Accusing another editor of plagiarism is uncivil, as well as being a personal attack on their character. Anything you post on Wikipedia is subject to its licensing terms. Dreadstar † 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Official warning

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

• [8] - It is none of your business what my access to sources is. For all you know I'm a paraplegic who types with a mouth piece.
• [9] - Plagarism is not improving a template.
• [10] - Same old uncivil comments and personal attacks, after being warned repeatedly.

There's more, but I'm too lazy to look it up. I don't know how else to make it clear, but the personal attacks need to stop now. I have refrained from attacking you personally, I expect the same good will. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion that this dispute is a sideline? The old saying "cutting off the nose to spite the face" comes to mind and now that everyone seems to be working fruitfully on the Arbcom-sanctioned BK articles (although there have disagreements of opinion, none of them have been either major or hostile) I would suggest it's probably best not to be involved in other war fronts where there's any risk that you'll be blocked for your actions. The other key thing here is always to debate the issue and not the person. Without making any judgement on the dispute with Neal Parr, it gets hard if you perceive that the person has such odd or unsustainable ideas that there's got to be something wrong, but if you attack him, all you'll achieve is acrimony (and probably your own departure). If you are blocked, then even points you had made to that point risk being lost as other editors say "That's the contribution of a blocked editor" and remove it (although this is in fact a misunderstanding of the blocking policy, it often happens). That is particularly the case if you are the only representative of one side of a debate.

If you can win the debate with the strength of your ideas and sources, and avoid personalising it, you're going to be in the best situation. It's hard and is forever a challenge for me in the politics areas where I normally work, especially when someone seems to be insisting on something which to me would reduce the value of the article, but if you want to stay around, it's worth taking on board. I suggest carefully reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and thinking about how to apply them to disputes you are in. Even I'm not above going back to those sometimes as a reality check when in a dispute.

I got you unblocked the last time (although leaving your original 48 hour block intact) because I have seen the turnaround at the BK article where the focus has transferred from the people to the issues and progress on all sides now seems to be being made, even if slowly. Admins that haven't seen you at BK are making different judgements, and so far they have shown the good faith to approach me privately rather than take action. Taking an aggressive stance on this other dispute is only going to rob us of your input, and I think that would be a loss for all concerned. Orderinchaos 01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Orderinchaos. As I've stated previously, I'm not pursuing a block, and am willing to ignore any negative comments on me as long as they're kept to a minimum in the future. I'd rather debate what I think are serious problems with actual content, rather than talk about each other. I'm sure something can be worked out on the content without anyone being blocked in the process. In fact, it can even be worked out with other editors besides myself. I've stated all my objections to the content. There's really no need for me to be an active part of the discussion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Broadsheet on spiritualism.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Broadsheet on spiritualism.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)