Jump to content

User talk:Sunray/Archive28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi. When you recently edited Frederick Banting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudbury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Hi - Wanted to encourage you to return, as your summary of the J-H controversy was so effective. We have settled on keeping the "Marriage and family" in the Early Years section (with additions) and theoretically have a Personal Life section near the end, to include his relationships with Maria Cosway and Sally Hemings (being vociferously argued against by one editor.) Thanks for your work, whether you return or not. Parkwells (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I have to say that I find the discussion lengthy at times, but if I can assist, I'm willing to try. Sunray (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

JFK's 1962 award to John Glenn

Pray tell, why you are removing my short narrative of JFK awarding John Glenn the NASA service medal in 1962? Don't like the location of the narrative? I remind you that there is an image of this ceremony on the JFK page and it is an iconic picture. Also this February marks the 50th anniversary of Glenn's epic orbit and this event I posted.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Also is it typical for you editors just remove narratives without explanations?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've replied on the JFK article talk page regarding your edit. With respect to your second question: You are correct that one should explain the revert of a good faith edit. I usually do that, but didn't in this case because you had made two back-to-back edits (the "undo" feature only deals with one at a time). Sorry. I will try harder to make the extra effort to explain. Sunray (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

thanx for reminding me Ric5575 (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

War of 1812 talk page

On the talk page of the War of 1812 there is a banner that you wrote about the never ending debate over "who won the War of 1812." One of the editors wants it changed since he believes it is biased to one view. Perhaps you could take a look. I know this is a tiresome issue and I'm sorry to bother you with it. Dwalrus (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Theosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rational (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for disappearing...

I saw this joke and my first instict was to share it with you and Granitethighs and the others:

http://xkcd.com/1007/

...and of course this is difficult because I disappeared from Wikipedia. The reason I disappeared was because I got my dream job, in a wonderful country with absolutely awful Internet connection. Also a new job meant a new computer etc etc so I lost all your emails.

Also I am very slack.

It is Sunday today and everyone is at church so the Internet is working well enough, hopefully, for you to get this and I hope it is new and funny to you. If you leave a note here or on my talk page I'll get it (probably next Sunday....)

Congratulations x several thousand for making "good article" status for Sustainability!!!!

Cheers, Travelplanner

Nice to hear from you TP. I did wonder where you went. Dream job in another country, eh? Where are you now? It certainly sounds very different from your previous work in Auckland (I'm going on the shaky Internet connection). Thanks for the cartoon about the unsustainability of the word "sustainable." Honestly, though, it doesn't seem to matter how often the word is repeated, humans only seem to hear it when convenient. Sunray (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:3O request at Talk:Madhyamaka

Hi there Sunray, I am initially approaching you directly to ask for a third opinion at Talk:Madhyamaka, because the subject matter is technical, and last time I went to the 3O committee I was told to find expert help next time. The current talk page depicts the entire dispute, and it involves both myself and user:CO2Northeast (whose contributions have a passing resemblance to an earlier editor we both know and love). (20040302 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Some intervention is clearly needed (though perhaps not a 3O at this point). I will take a look. Sunray (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Who do I pass a resemblance to?CO2Northeast (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to deal with you on the basis of your current edits. You have a new user account and began editing on January 9, right? That is all I need to know for now. Sunray (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation. I appreciate your input on the question I asked of you on the talk page. CO2Northeast (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

???

Why am I being threatened? I assume you are an Administrator/Moderator. Madison34563 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I made an observation and a request to you, based on WP policies. What is your concern about that? Sunray (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

More suspect behaviour?

User:Cavandish (alongside CO2Northeast / User:Madison34563 ) is now adding cites from exactly the same text (Tsondru, Mabja) at Pratītyasamutpāda It looks like a cut'n'paste job. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pratītyasamutpāda&action=historysubmit&diff=474269478&oldid=473279684 (20040302 (talk))

Are you concerned about use of multiple accounts? Sunray (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Although there is a denial of it, these accounts are all new, and are all agreeing with each other. The use of blatant non-sequiturs, a tendency to misinterpret reliable sources, other similar behaviours (misspellings of simple words like 'course' for 'coarse'; a strong aversion to the idea that the Madhyamaka denies inherent existence; an unwillingness to respond meaningfully to questions that are pertinent to investigation, uncalled for lack of civility, rewrites, attempts to undermine constructive, collaborative work. Other common interests such as a shared editorial trend across Hindu texts , tantra, and the middle-way philosophy. Similar timezones (which is a late evening for me), intense editorial sessions; pretty meaningless point-scoring, etc.
In fairness, I often find some of the ideas challenging and interesting, and it helps my development of both tolerance and encourages me to deepen my understanding - especially of the Madhyamaka - a living school of thought, of which I would be proud to be considered a part of. What dismays me is a consistent unwillingness to collaborate meaningfully - and the tendency to divert attention from one specific topic into another, and yet another - what I would consider to be evidence of a scattered mind. (20040302 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)) :)

Thunder Loot Oot Oot

I just reverted all four of Thunder Loot Oot Oot's edits. Unconstructive and rather juvenile. Jim1138 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For sure. I just did the same with User talk:Ba Limp XXXVI. It appears to be the same user. Sunray (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
user talk:Dazz Uncle Frank just did a similar edit to Candlepin bowling Am I helping? Jim1138 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You bet. A report to WP:ANI is in order. Sunray (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Reported here Sunray (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Added (User talk:Zmmp Peckham VI) to the AIV list. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. Sunray (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation on Sailor Moon (english adaptation)?

Im positive its been ovver a week. Has there been any word on Malkinann?Lucia Black (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. We will have to close the mediation. Sunray (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Such a shame it had to close like this.Lucia Black (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Science and Technology

I am wondering why you undid my edit to Science and Technology in the article, "Canada"? JoJaEpp (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page here. Sunray (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you got me confused with some one else. I did not write about F-35 fighters, I wrote about medical history in Canada. Please do not mix things up and erase my contributions for no reason. JoJaEpp (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right, you did not write about F-35 fighters when the citation given was about F-35's. That is not permitted. Please read the section on "Text-source integrity" in WP:CITE. Sunray (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My material was sourced, but I did not put the source down. Why didn't you source it yourself instead of erasing a good contribution. Don't be destructive, be constructive. JoJaEpp (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to go with this. It seems that I wasn't clear in what I said. There were two edits you made. Both were not in line with editing practices in Wikipedia. The edit summaries I gave explained the problems as I saw them and I added a note on the article talk page. You don't seem to clear about what I've been saying. If you genuinely wish to learn, I could go over it again. There is nothing destructive in asking people to follow WP policies and editing practices. Sunray (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you're confused. I did not violate any policies. Please show me where I went wrong. JoJaEpp (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already cited some of the policies and guidelines that apply. But let me take you through this by the numbers. All material must be verifiable with a reliable source. Your additions did not have citations to reliable sources. While that might not be as important in a new article, it an absolute requirement in a featured article. A featured article can lose its status if all material is not properly sourced.
Above, you said: "My material was sourced, but I did not put the source down. Why didn't you source it yourself..." The answer to that is that it is not my responsibility to look up sources for your text. There were other problems with your edit and I didn't want to mess with it. The main concern, as I have said, was with WP:CITE#Text source integrity. This means that you should not put new text in the middle of other (already sourced) text.
Finally, as I stated in my edit summary and on the talk page: The "Canada" article is mature. The guidelines at the top of the article (representing a consensus of editors), clearly spell out the reasons for limiting additions to the article and request that editors add material to the various sub-articles.
I trust that the above is clear. Would you be able to indicate that you now understand what I have said? Sunray (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a few problems with what you said. First of all, what other problems are there with my contribution? Secondly, why would you not source it yourself; if you took the trouble to delete it, you could have easily sourced it. Do you never do more than your responsibility? I have also heard that the Canadian articles need much upgrading and improving. I did this to help the article. If you will undo the delete, then I will source it. There is nothing wrong with putting new stuff into the existing sub-articles. You said that editors should add. JoJaEpp (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you still have problems with what I have said. I've done my best to explain. As to me providing the source: I cannot guess what source you would have used. Further, as I have already said, there were other problems with your edit. The Canada article is not a subarticle. It does not need further "help." It is rated the highest class of Wikipedia articles. As you seem to not understand basic policies and instructions, you should not try to edit that article. There are lots of others (see this list of Canadian articles to improve). Now I would suggest that you dive into that list. Happy editing! Sunray (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it is not a sub-article; I was talking about the Science and Technology sub-article. I thought Wikipedia's policy is that it encourages editing. I don't care if it is a highly rated article; there is nothing wrong with putting more info on it. I will still be editing it, but I will source any further info I put on it. JoJaEpp (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

From what you have said, I can't tell whether you are clear on what a subarticle is. A subarticle is a separate article, not a section of the "Canada" article. Science and technology in Canada is a subarticle. But I would encourage you to edit articles from the "Articles to improve" notice board, instead. Sunray (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not making it clear. I do know what a sub-article is. I just said Science and technology in Canada is a sub-article. Yes, I am very clear on what that is. That probably is a good idea to edit articles from "Articles to improve"; however, I have been editing for a while, and I think it is fine if I edit "Canada". JoJaEpp (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing the article is fine, provided that you keep the following guideline in mind:
"This overview article is already too long and should serve only as an introduction for Canada. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about Canada linked from this article. See the List of basic Canada topics."
This statement, representing consensus by article editors, suggests that copyediting, improving wording, or brief additions, are fine, but longer edits, or ones that don't conform to WP policies, will be reverted. Sunray (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

20040302 is changing direct quotes

I noticed that 20040302 is changing direct quotes. For example here, he changed the direct quote in the footnote, changing the word eternalism to essentialism. I confirmed the original says eternalism. Calculated (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that I should be harangued by a rather persistent SP with radical views, who now seems to prefer opening up one-time accounts. Any rewriting of a cite was an error on my behalf - however, the actual edit had a comment pointing to the extensive post - near essay - on Talk:Madhyamaka regarding the translation of sassatavāda/ucchedavāda - why it has been translated by many as 'eternalism' - and why the translation doesn't suffice. I know I could be accused of WP:SYN / WP:OR yet there are plenty of WP:RS - which I have previously cited extensively. In brief, 'eternalism' is a poor translation in that it only covers anicca and not anatta - Lord Buddha himself defines sassatavāda: "'He who performs the act also experiences [the result]' [...] this amounts to the sassatavāda." (SN12.17), and 'eternalism' does not do much to indicate that definition. I would prefer something like 'efficacious self' - but that really would be WP:OR. Essentialism is used a lot in modern secondary literature, and, in that it relates far more directly at anatta, is (as can be noticed by it's uptake with modern scholarship) a better choice.
Regarding the vast wealth of literature authored by well-meaning translators and scholars who have no tradition to support them, there is a problem which is that a vast amount of apparently RS literature cannot be considered to be RS, even though some are published by academic publishers. As I was discussing with a close friend yesterday, 'emptiness' attracts wild intellectual theories like nothing else. Many professors and scholars have little or no grounding in anything more than the ability to translate with little awareness of the extensive historic commentarial literature Scholars like Elizabeth Napper have written on this very subject. However, I feel that I cannot act as an efficient 'gatekeeper', and so I have repeatedly invited wikipedians - sockpuppets or no- to discuss these things in order to come to some sort of consensus. Sockpuppets aside, there have been very few objections to my edits.

If there is anything more I can do, or should do, let me know. (20040302 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

Mediation, and how it went

Hello Sunray, I posted an appeal of my topic ban sanction at AE (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_.3CFkpCascais.3E), and as during the posterior discussions an argument appeared, at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#WP:AE, namely:

"You are one of the participants in a mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic that went on for more than a year. It is easy to believe that one or more of the participants in the mediation aren't very good negotiators when something runs that long. The mediator, Sunray, asserted on the article talk page on 22 June 2011, "The main reason the mediation has lasted a long as it has relates to the inability of participants to conform to WP behavioral policies."

I was hopping you could help me clarify that issue, as seems that it is assumed that I am guilty and that argument seems to have worked against me. I know we had some more difficult periods, specially at the begining where all of us participants basically unfamiliarised with the process were making things harder, but I really beleave that from the half way trough the end I was actually doing my best not to be an obstacle, and I even left aside many issues just so we could successfully archive the conclusion. I was even much less present by the end while leaving room for other editors who allways had many issues not wanting to let them go... The own matter by itself was very complicated, so I was kind of sad when I heard this argument used against me. Would it be possible to ask you just to leave a note regarding my contribution to the mediation, and the difficulties of the process by itself? Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

RCAF article focus

Hey Sunray, since we are seeking opinions, I wonder if you would like to provide some input here.- BC  talk to me 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Sunray. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Promotional nature of WWEA and GWEC

To answer your question on my talk page, yes, I do have concerns about these bodies. The WWEA is not even just an industry body - anyone can join for as little as 50 Euros. It is very much a promotional body, yet the wind power page makes numerous references to that as a source. If a promotional body is the only source of such data, one has to question whether it should be used so extensively.

Drop me a note on my talk page, as I'm not going to remember to come back here to read any reply. Drkirkby (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)  Done Sunray (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Climate change in Saskatchewan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Boreal, Conservation, Mesic, Trembling aspen and Migration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sunray (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Theosophy

Hi - I may need a mediator over here. you helped before and I thought you may be kind enough to do so again. thanks! JEMead (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I edit the Theosophy Category Banner? It appears to be a portal/template (?). I assume syntax help will be easy to find. The other question is if I can do this entirely in my sandbox? I actually may only need a few pointers. I should be able to figure things out. JEMead (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Not something I know a lot about. You might start here: Help:Category. Good luck. Sunray (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! JEMead (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Template: Music of Canada

Howdy Sunray. You may have noticed there's frustration from other editors, concerning Mies. My theory on this: Mies is too concentrated on Canadian monarchy topics & needs to ease up. Indeed, just his being present at such discussions, is a distraction. This is because rightly/wrongly, he's viewed as having a pro-monarchary agenda for Canadian articles. I believe he'll likely continue to run into 'complaints' from other editors, for the foreseeable future. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate the constructive approach you take in a difficult discussion. I agree with the way you have assessed the dynamics. You know the players and you know the alternatives (RfC/U, arbitration). Mediation doesn't work in these kinds of disputes (i.e., ones with behavioural aspects). The course I favour is to continue the discussion while maintaining standards of how participants speak to one another. If you agree, let's see who else we can get on-side for civil discourse. Sunray (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Keeping the Template dispute on a civil level, is best. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You might wish to comment in that vein in response to the recent "Note on process" I made on the Template talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sunray, please allow me to get this clearly, so misconceptions don't cloud my future judgement: you think I'm the problem at Template talk:Music of Canada? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see you as the problem. But there is a problem which falls in the domain of "toxic editing environment." You do insist on a monarchist point of view. That seems to infuriate other editors. I'm not excusing their behaviour, but it certainly would help if you were to modify your approach. Sunray (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's partly good to hear. But, do you have any suggestions as to how I could modify my approach? I ask because I've so far honestly thought that a desire for neutrality was a key motivator for me in that dispute. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
What you are saying is most interesting to me. I'm of the view that we all have biases, yet many WP editors are able to achieve neutrality. I think that talk page interaction is often enhanced when editors demonstrate the ability to listen to others. How would you rate yourself on that? Sunray (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Fairly good at it, I'd say. Do you see indication that I'm not listening, or not doing it well enough? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Glkanter

Hi - Just FYI, it's obvious to me this edit is Glkanter, who is both permanently topic banned (by arbcom) and indefinitely blocked. He's been trolling the talk page for a while. Guy has been reporting the various IPs he's been using as socks. Elen has blocked several. I'd suggest deleting the section rather than responding. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that was what was happening. I've responded simply stating my parameters for being there (which do not include discussing matters with anon editors). Sunray (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

nonresponse to replies to subjects you raised and rudeness

In the following I have attempted to place pertinent passages in bold text. I have only done so to assist you because you complained of having difficulty reading passages of text that feel long to you. Please reply to the sections in bold. Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to be more succinct in your posts. Many people, including me, do not enjoy wading through walls of text. Yet here is another huge missive from you. Since you have bolded certain parts, I will reply to those points (in blue) as best I can. Sunray (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunray you wrote, “Please don't indent your posts (except by using colons). It skews the text in wiki markup language, making part of your message illegible. Sunray (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunray, I am looking at the Talk: Theosophy site and everything I have written is perfectly legible. Please explain why you do not think it is legible and provide helpful advice for ameliorating the problem you state you are having. Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks fine now because I fixed it. Take a look at this post by you. If you scroll down to the bottom, you will see what conventional indenting does to the wiki markup. If you wish to indent you need to put ":" before the text. Sunray (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Your remark above appears to be your second drive-by attack of me. The first was your citation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn't_read from which I quote, “A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity.”Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I regret that you have taken offence. It was not my intention to attack you. I was referring to the very long posts you have made on the talk page and the fact that such long posts may make it very difficult for other editors to follow. My comment was offered in good faith as useful information for a new user. I hope you will be able to see it as constructive. Sunray (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I state that your unreasonable deadline of April 30th despite my clear reasons why that deadline is not appropriate or helpful appears to be yet a third drive-by attack. Please respond to the points I made in my response to your deadline which I have included below.

Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have said that they do not see an neutrality problem. You need to justify your contention that the article is not neutral in order for that tag to remain. All that is needed is a few simple examples to justify your contention. I don't understand why that should take so long. Sunray (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunray you wrote, “Recently, a "NPOV" tag was added to the article by Factseducado. I haven't yet read a rationale that I think supports that tag. Other editors have said that they do not agree that the article lacks neutrality. Therefore, the onus is on Factseducado to present evidence that supports continued display of the tag. I suggest that that tag should remain on the article until April 30. Editors should be able to review evidence of adherence to WP:NPOV presented by then and determine the best course of action. Sunray (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)” Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I responded, “Sunray, please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F. The neutrality of this article is in dispute. JEMead has now made changes to the article. This is evidence that JEMead has conceded that I rightly pointed out a problem with the entry has attempted remediation. I present this as evidence that the neutrality of this article is in dispute, that the dispute has not been resolved, that the dispute is in the process of being resolved, and that as of yet there is no pre-determined date by which the neutrality dispute will have been resolved. As I stated in response to GreenUniverse, "If I have time this weekend I'll re-write this with a few peer-reviewed sources." In the meantime, please recognize each alteration of the entry and change in the citations necessitates more work on my part to determine whether each citation is appropriate and whether the Wikipedia text accurately portrays the text cited. Academic research is a slow, cumbersome process that requires enormous attention to detail. Furthermore, I will have to obtain books and order unavailable books through inter-library loan which takes time. Until this neutrality dispute has been resolved you can undertake changes to the text as JEMead has done or find and suggest appropriate sources as I have done. If you have nothing else to contribute, I would prefer to direct my time as GreenUniverse commanded rather than respond to your comments to me on this talk page because it only delays the resolution of this neutrality dispute.Factseducado (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)” Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Editors who are working hard to improve an article (such as JEMead) do not deserve to have an obnoxious "neutrality dispute" tag added to the article. Other editors are justified in offering their opinion on the article's neutrality. So far, the consensus is that you have not justified the case that the article lacks neutrality. Several editors have also asked you to make whatever additions you deem necessary in order to improve the article. Since you do not like the deadline I suggested, and in view of the consensus of editors on the talk page, I shall remove the tag for now. Sunray (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Next topic:

Sunray, you also wrote, “So far, Factseducado has presented two sources (in the "History of Theosophy - the Academic Divisions" section). Of the two, The theosophical enlightenment, by Joscelyn Godwin seems to be a reliable sourcein that it is peer reviewed and published by an academic press. Eastern spirituality in America : selected writings, edited by R.S. Ellwood. does not seem to meet WP:IRS as an academic source. I would be happy to see addition of the Godwin source. Sunray (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I responded, “Sunray, you indicated that Godwin's book was "peer reviewed." What does peer-review mean to you and how do you apply it to a book in contrast to a journal article? Factseducado (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

:Sunray, in point of fact I have provided three sources. You left out the book on theosophy which can be located through a search for the word "theosophy" on the external link to "European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism" provided in this Wikipedia entry. That book is titled "Controversial New Religions." It is edited by James R. Lewis and Jesper Aagaard Petersen and published by Oxford University Press. The link is at http://www.esswe.org/#publications/controversial-new-religions.html. Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, The book "Eastern spirituality in America : selected writings, edited by R.S. Ellwood does explicitly meet the qualifications listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Please note the information athttp://www.robertellwoodbooks.info/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM3QkMDI8b8, as well as the citation of Ellwood in the text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Theosophy and the two reference citations of works by Ellwood on that same page. I think your objection to Ellwood as a source on the topic of theosophy and your willingness to embrace Verslius' book published by Lindisfarne demonstrate either an unwillingness or an inability to accept the perspective of legitimate, recognized scholars and to give the proper weight to mainstream versus fringe opinions in this Wikipedia entry. Factseducado (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)” Factseducado (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I was basing my comments on WP policy on reliable sources. The specific policy requirement for academic scholarship is stated here. You asked about the criteria for peer review. The policy summarizes that as follows: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." With that in mind, do you see the difference between the two sources I spoke about? Sunray (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I know both the Wikipedia policy as it relates to peer-review and the peer-review process as it exists in publishing. You did not answer my questions which are: What does peer-review mean to you and how do you apply it to a book in contrast to a journal article? In other words, I'd like to understand how you interpret the policy you quoted.
Please explicitly state your beliefs about Lindisfarne, Paulist Press, and Dr. Ellwood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 03:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I would only apply the policy to a specific citation. Sunray (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You wrote, "Eastern spirituality in America : selected writings, edited by R.S. Ellwood. does not seem to meet WP:IRS as an academic source." What is it about this book, the publisher, or the writer that you object to? In what way are you alleging that it does not seem to meet "WP:IRS as an academic source?"
On what specific points did you interpret WP policy on reliable sources and here to justify your lack of objection to the following source after an objection was raised: "Versluis, Arthur (1994). Theosophia: Hidden dimensions of Christianity. Lindisfarne." Here is an example of one of the many spots this source was cited, "In the 16th century Johannes Arboreus’ Theosophia (volumes published1540-1553) provided a lengthy exposition that included no mention of esotericism.[1]" Here is a partial list of the citation list showing it cited eight times: "

^ Faivre 2000 p. 8 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33 ^ Faivre 1987 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33 ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33" Factseducado (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Ellwood: I did not say that this reference could not be used as a reliable source. However, it would likely only be used as a primary source.
Regarding Versluis: I did not comment on Versluis. I was responding to your statement that begins: "Academic sources from a neutral point of view are plentiful and support my assertions. I submit two..." I have no idea what point you were/are making about Versluis. Sunray (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Ellwood, please, support your classification of Ellwood as a primary source. He fits all qualifications as a secondary source.
Regarding Versluis, Theosophia: Hidden dimensions of Christianity was heavily cited. It was published by Lindisfarne which disqualifies it according to [[WP:IRS|reliable sources]}, here and WP:IRS as an academic source. That book could be used as a primary source though. However, it would best if it were then commented on by a reliable academic source. Do you agree that Lindisfarne cannot be accepted as a publisher of a reliable source and that in fact Theosophia: Hidden dimensions of Christianity is not a reliable academic source? Factseducado (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Neither the Paulist Press nor Lindisfarne are academic presses, IMO. That is enough discussion here. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Versluis 1994 p. 27 & 33
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sunray/Archive28&oldid=1089840690"