Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharmakeia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While the socking issue is rather stale by now, there is consensus that this is either a dictionary definition or fringe in its present form. If someone wants me to userify the content or provide it via email for any worthwhile selective merging into Pharmakos or anywhere else, let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Pharmakeia

Pharmakeia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

multiple issues unresolved since 2008; unresolveable hodgepodge article Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to put a note on the Talk page of the article creator, Aldrich Hanssen and learned that the user was a sock of Sarsaparilla. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, this article is a strange hodepodge of etymology, biblical studies, and some wierd assertions about magic and medicine, barely sourced. I thought about merging it into Pharmacy or History of pharmacy but there is no "there" there, to even merge from. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Will this keep me safe from karmic retribution?

• Delete - "Wifi in computers is the same frequency as a microwave oven and for behavioral modification purposes the intensity can be increased remotely so dissidents on the internet often get irradiated by intense microwave transmissions from their own computer making them feel hot and irradiated." WTF is that? This is just pseudo-scientific garbage dressed up as some sort of quasi historical dictionary definition. Each of the (very disparate) ideas has been synthed together to create some sort of gibberish whole. Nothing here worth keeping but for what it's worth, we already have Pharmakos which would seem to cover most of what is being suggested here but in much more coherent form. Stalwart111 03:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• REMAIN - KEEP - I am against the deletion of this article because it contains issues that God hates and anyone supporting the deletion of this article will certainly get bad karma and karma means "pay back" because God will be the one who will deal with them. The Greek word Pharmakeia is in the Bible and this article explains what is truly meant by Witchcraft and Sorcery by the original writers of the Bible so therefore the article should remain. By the way that information about directed energy weapons was recently added. :2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

See Active Denial System and Directed-energy weapon Directed Energy Weapons and black ops is not "pseudo-scientific garbage" Stalwart111 - You should go see the videos on metanoia-films.org/films

Stalwart111 if you do not believe the Wifi in the computer is the same frequency as a Microwave oven then look it up because as unbelievable as it is it is true. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Also anyone wanting to support this article remain speak up now because God will certainly give you blessings for not remaining silent and letting these two delete this article. :2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

No no, I believe you. I connected to my hot spot this morning and cooked the ham sandwich on my desk. Bring on the karma. Stalwart111 04:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Most microwave ovens for home use operate at a standardized frequency of 2.45 GHz

Wi-Fi, also spelled Wifi or WiFi, is a local area wireless technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data or connect to the internet using 2.4 GHz UHF and 5 GHz SHF

Stalwart they are not cooking anyone. They intensify the beams with commands sent to the dissidents computer causing them to feel very hot and irradiated even though the air condition is on. It is enough to cause extreme discomfort to deter them from their internet activities not to cook anybody. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart announced he was going to release videos of Obama during his college days that would expose Obama and he was driven out of his house with orbital directed energy weapons where he took off walking the streets in the middle of the night to escape the orbital beams targeting his house and he was given a heart attack not far from his home. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111 I do not think you have anything to fear from the Mafia so you can put your tin foil hat away because you are being a good little Nazi. It is God who you have to worry about. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with User:Jytdog about the page. This is nonsense. It says nothing meaningful in a coherent manner. The article appears to assert that people who wear makeup are participating in witchcraft or, at least, are under the control of the makers of those substances (through the means of the makeup itself, and not the commercial marketing that creates demand for such products). In other words, most adult women and many men, in western countries, are being controlled by witches. No reliable sources for that assertion, of course. Add in a random unsourced claim of energy weapons. There are some sources for the word, but not the conclusions or assertions that this article associates with the word. There is no evidence that these assertions are from somewhere else, and therefore, the article may represent Original Research (although it is difficult to use the word Research in this context). There's just nothing in this article worth saving. Nickmalik (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete it with fire, and maybe redirect to pharmacy, or a similar topic pharmakos (again, only after deleting what's here). This content is unremarkable even by pseudoscience standards. My learned colleagues Stalwart111 and Nickmalik have said it better than I can. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Definitely redirect this title to pharmakos per McGeddon. Whether to keep the dicdef that was previously here even in the edit history... I don't particularly care. As McGeddon rightly says, it was just a bland dicdef. Standard practice when there's anything salvageable does seem to be to preserve in the form of edit history. In short, I'm good with either way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oh dear, what a load of cack on the backside of Wikipedia. I recommend the liberal use of -->

  

  -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  Comment I've removed some of the worst bullshit - maybe there's something that can be salvaged in what's left? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  And more. I've removed the Bible section, as every quote consisted of the writer interpreting words like "sorcery" to mean "Pharmakeia" or "pharmacy" - the passages themselves (at least in standard English translations) don't mention Pharmakeia or pharmacy. It was blatant OR. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  OK, all of that bible stuff was OR. What seems to have happened is that we have English translations of books of the bible which use the word "sorcery", and we have the Greek word "pharmakeia" sometimes translated to English as "sorcery" - and the writer has deduced from that that the bible books refer to "pharmakeia". That's not just OR, it's bad OR - to justify it, we'd need a source that supports the claim that the original books actually used the word "pharmakeia". Some of them might have done - Revelation was in Greek, I believe - but we can't use a back-translation from the English translation back into Greek as evidence. With that removed, we don't really have anything left than a dictionary definition. Delete or Redirect to Pharmakos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Zebedee. You are showing your ignorance because those Bible verses were originally written in Greek where the word Pharmakeia was used and later sorcery was substituted for the Greek word in the English Translation. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please keep on reading what I wrote - we'd need a reliable source that says the word "Pharmakeia" was used in the originals, not just a statement of the English versions with a translation back into Greek added with only a dictionary as a source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

(Oh, and even with a good-enough source, the fact that a word was used in some bible books really doesn't say anything at all - there's still nothing encyclopedic in the article that isn't covered in Pharmakos. The article before pruning was just synthesis based on nothing but the existence of a word. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC))

Zebedee, There already is a reliable source that Pharmakeia was translated into English to Wicthcraft and Sorcery in the Bible and that is the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bible quotations in the "Pharmakeia and the Bible" section had no sourcing at all, and the only reference given to Strong's is as a translation of "Pharmakeia" as "Sorcery". If you can find actual support in Strong's that those books actually contain the word "Pharmakeia", then by all means reinstate that content and add that as a source. (But as I say, the mere fact that the word was used in the bible really doesn't make it an encyclopedic topic - but that's for the rest of the discussion to decide) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is an online Strong's Concordance - can you use that to find evidence of the word "Pharmakeia" in, say, Revelation 9:21? (I haven't tried myself - don't have time right now, but maybe you do?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=revelation+9:21&t=kjv http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/pharmakeia.html

The first link has the original Greek and when you click on the Greek word you go to the second link. By the way the Online Strong's is the new revised version and it does not have quite the same definition as the old one and I know why. They are trying to whitewash that pharmakeia means pharmacy and medicines and trying to make it look like it refers to drugs which some people maintain is not the same thing as medicine. They want to make it look like Coca, Marijuana and Opium Poppy are drugs and therefore that is what the Bible is talking about when it says pharmakeia. But Genesis makes it very clear that God gave man all plants bearing seed as food for man so therefore there is nothing wrong with a nice big glass of Marijuana juice or Marijuana seed oil on your salad. Smoking however is a conduit to allow demons to enter the body however. Coca leaves make an excellent tea but chemically derived Cocaine is pharmakeia and there is nothing wrong with consuming opium poppy but chemically derived opiates are pharmakeia. 2602:306:C518:6C40:6C78:AA3E:8EED:274F (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well then, all you have to do is use those links as proper sources for the bible quotations and put them back in the article if you really want to. In fact, if the article should survive this discussion I'll do it myself, but at the moment it looks like we're heading for deletion and I won't spend time on it that's likely to be wasted. (As for the rest of what you say about the translation, Wikipedia really isn't interested - we can only go with what reliable sources say, not with what anonymous Wikipedia users claim). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Zebedee you are the Pot calling the Kettle Black by calling me Anonymous because of an IP address because I am sure your name is not Zebedee so you are actually even more anonymous then I am because I can be tracked down because my IP is displayed but on the other hand it is impossible for you to be tracked down because you use a handle unless of course Wikipedia is willing to divulge your IP address. So you see I am les anonymous then you are. Do you know what hypocrisy means? 2602:306:C518:6C40:104:2C2F:6D19:45D6 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing hypocritical in what I say - my unsupported claims would be worth no more than yours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Merge to Pharmakos, although some surprise that one editor adding a self-contained, unsourced chunk of wi-fi-and-aliens to an otherwise bland dictionary definition, one day before the AfD, is enough to poison the well and get silly GIF insults and "kill it with fire". --McGeddon (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the article without that inclusion still contained, "Magical pharmacia substances or potions often bind someone under a spell by evocation with and without uttered word formulas. Cosmetics, lotions and perfumes were also made by practitioners of pharmaceuticalism and by extension any lab made substance or chemical falls in the realm of pharmakeia or pharmacia." It was originally created by the sock-puppet of a now-site-banned editor. The wifi nonsense didn't help but this was problematic long before yesterday. Stalwart111 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say that now ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Good start. I'd be comfortable with a merge/redirect but I still think this replicates Pharmakos as I first noted. Stalwart111 08:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, after a bit more thought, I agree - I've amended my recommendation above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. See Poe's law, particularly the Morgan's adage. No such user (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to violate WP:SYN, WP:V, and half a dozen other things. I'm not convinced this is a thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as a dictionary definition. Etymology can be fun, but it is not generally encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.