Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 5 August 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Style

This article indirectly highlights the tension between science and religion, and has several sections which are less than encyclopedic. In particular, the section regarding the 2010 tests fails to adequately provide the scientific rigor in proving Mr. Jani's unprecedented ability or any rationale undermining it beyond some inflammatory comments. In full disclosure, I am biased against believing these claims, but I do not find enough objective information here to make any sort of informed opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.35 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 June 2010

We provide whatever information is available, as it may be helpful in forming a versatile view of the case. Currently there's not enough high quality 'scientifically proven' sources on the subject. As soon as new or better quality information becomes available it may be included into the article, or eventually replace the low quality fragments. The purpose of the article is not to make someone believe or discard the mentioned claims, but rather to provide the fullest possible information about the case. -- Nazar (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the anon that there is no scientific rigour to counterbalance these unprecedented claims. Dr.K.  04:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed info

This is about the last two removals by Escape orbit, which he/she repeatedly removed, neglecting the effort to make the paragraphs as neutral as possible after his first removals.

The second removed para is a direct citation from the source, and I think it is vital to show that there are a number of scholars in India who support the claims, based on certain theories they deem viable.

The first para Escape orbit removed is a strict informational description of the video uploaded by IRA and referred to in the article. If we remove that video overview as OR, how are we supposed to provide a balanced description of the IRA criticism? Or should we just remove all the IRA related info?

I'm restoring the removed info based on the arguments above, as well as per WP:FILMPLOT -- "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events". If you're not happy with that info, please do further improve the plot description to be NPOV, instead of blanking the para.

Nazar (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the assertion that "the clips related to the bathing procedures are from 2003 tests" your own personal interpretation of the footage? We should be quoting a reliable source on this, rather than invoking original research. Similarly, if you feel that Edamaruku's footage deliberately misrepresents the experiment by assuming there was only one camera, that should come from a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch that video first. You'll laugh at it. But, to be neutral here, I happen to be fluent in Polish and the short few seconds clip of that video related to bathing says in Polish that it is from 2003. Also, the few second long repeatedly shown clips of 'obstruction by devotees' and 'out of field of view' are obviously cut from one and the same camera footage. You can see the same background of the scene. haha. The bulk of the video (over 85% I guess) is Sanal Edamaruku's own appearances in news and talk shows. And I really don't understand how IRA got that Polish video back from 2003 now after 2010 tests... -- Nazar (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Having found the time to watch the video, I now realise I can't understand any of the languages being used in it, so I can't comment on its content. However, if the video shows Edamaruku introducing a blatantly 2003 clip explicitly claiming that it's from 2010, it's not up to individual Misplaced Pages editors to call him out on it. We should just say something like "Edamaruku introduced a clip he described as being from 2010". If a reliable source has pointed out his mistake, then we can quote that; if it hasn't, we can't add anything. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Though I am of the opinion that video does not provide any of the proofs Edamaruku says about in his critical article, I understand that the instruments currently available in Misplaced Pages do not provide adequate means to neutrally expose that deficiency of the video material. I've done my best. The rest is up to those interested in the case. Thanks! :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with users McGeddon and Escape Orbit that the video information is WP:SYNTH and it must be removed. Dr.K.  04:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only was it original research, in that it consisted of uncited, original analysis of a video, it was also sourced from YouTube. YouTube is not a reliable source as there is no way of verifying where the video came from, whether it is accurately attributed and described, or whether it has been tampered with. --Escape Orbit 07:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The unique youtube link has been used by Edamaruku in his article. Please refer there. But generally I don't mind if you remove the info. It's hard to expect a NPOV approach in a society of editors dominated by fanatic rationalism tendencies. That kind of bias should be expected and taken into account, while assessing the articles created by such a society. Thanks. And have fun screwing up the article(s) :) -- Nazar (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

By "fanatic rationalism tendencies" I suppose you mean "following the rules". Seriously, if you can find a good source then you can add this. But you cannot add your own personal analysis, no matter how correct or obvious you personally may think it is. If every editor was allowed to add their own take on things then that really would be "screwing up the article".--Escape Orbit 09:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, what is done here by Dr.K.  and Escape Orbit is bending the rules to make the article look the way they like it. General common sense calls for an inclusion of the video overview into the logic of the article, as the video is the main argument used by IRA for trenchant criticism of the case. And the video is obviously (neutrally viewed) full of failures and manipulations. But I do understand that transcribing the video plot leaves a lot of space for personal interpretation and can't be as much NPOV as text references. As video materials become increasingly commonly used in Information exchange and as Misplaced Pages sources too, the rules will probably have to be amended in this regard to take that into account. But for today the situation is not in favor of NPOV exposure of the issue in question through video overview... I'm also sorry if I'm being a bit too biting in some of my comments. I admit I'm a bit too emotional there, that's my own imperfection... -- Nazar (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Can the following analysis be included in the Prahlad Jani article unsupported by a reliable source?

The video montage uploaded by IRA and allegedly showing the "loopholes" in the monitoring of the last tests is constructed mostly of the clips from the Sanal Edamaruku's own appearances in Indian news channels, with a few repeatedly shown short clips from Jani's CCTV coverage. The clips related to the bathing procedures are from 2003 tests and are overlaid with Polish comments in subtitles, and those supposedly showing the obstruction by devotees and 'out of camera' episodes are all made by one and the same camera, while the reports of DIPAS researchers explicitly state that there were several cameras to monitor the on-going event from different angles.

Dr.K.  04:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(Looks like this RFC drew no comments before it expired.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only the RFC but also my report at the original research noticeboard which closed with no replies. Maybe it is such a clear-cut case of original research that no one wants to bother. Dr.K.  16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And maybe people just don't want to get into an issue which is unclear yet. Because examination of Edamaruku's criticism easily reveals its flaws and confidence trick style of argumentation. -- Nazar (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it's just chance that nobody saw it. If you still disagree that the quoted paragraph demonstrates original research, you are free to relist the RFC. Just put {{rfctag|sci}} at the top of this section. --McGeddon (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the quoted paragraph may be only a technical one. It may be reconstructed or better referenced to illustrate the point in accordance with the current Wiki Policies. But there's practically no doubt about the point itself: "Edamaruku's criticism is a con, based on no objective evidence, and exploiting the gullible nature of the 'scientifically educated' audience". Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we get the idea that you don't like Edamarku - other editors intentionally aren't discussing their personal opinions on this, because it isn't what this talk page is for. That Misplaced Pages articles don't include the personal interpretations of individual editors is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS, and is much more fundamental than a mere "technicality". --McGeddon (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to get it. I like Edamaruku and his job. And I'm very much supportive of inclusion of his objective criticism and real facts related to exposure of frauds related to spiritual claims. But in the case discussed above the way his criticism is rendered is tendentious. The rendering lacks neutrality and fails to show the flaws of the material, which are obvious for any neutral observer. It's not about my personal view. It's about the quality of information we provide in the article. -- Nazar (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We say that Edamarku "felt" some monitoring was insufficient, and that he "accused" Jani of interference. True, we say that he "pointed out" other problems, but I mentioned this elsewhere as being problematic, and have now changed it to "claimed". Where is the neutrality lacking in the current version of the article? --McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The video material is the main argument for Edamaruku's criticism. And the irony is that 90% of the readers would not watch it at all, while 90% of those who do watch would not pay attention to the dating and other failures. And when these are exposed, the whole basis of his criticism becomes equal to none; moreover, it becomes obvious that his rendering of the material is manipulated. But I do not accuse you of not being neutral enough. You did your best to ensure neutrality based on the available text information and the current set of Wiki Policies. Thank you for doing that. I, however, think that this wasn't enough. If I find a way of amending it, I might come back to this issue later. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The video is irrelevant - we have a Guardian article written by Edamarku in which he makes these allegations, and that is the only source we're using. I don't see any reason why this source doesn't meet WP:RS. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why should the video be irrelevant, if in the same Guardian article Edamaruku claims: "an official video clip revealed (here he gives a direct link to the video) that Jani would sometimes move out of the CCTV camera's field of view; he was allowed to receive devotees and could even leave the sealed test room for a sun bath; his regular gargling and bathing activities were not sufficiently monitored and so on." And when we watch the video from that link, it actually reveals nothing of the above. Moreover, it comes out that this video is not an official video recording of 2010 tests. haha. -- Nazar (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This article says nothing about the video revealing anything, or that the video is objectively true; it merely says that Edamaruku has made various comments in the Guardian newspaper. --McGeddon (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To help pinpoint synthesis and original research points on the proposed paragraph I just added a few more tags. Dr.K.  13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

haha. good job! bravo! sandbox would be a proper place for you to play more with those colorful tags :) and it must really be a HUGE original research to see the Arabic numerals with date 2003 on the clips. LOL. -- Nazar (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You go play in the sandbox with your original research and improper synthesis instead of advising me who points out your improper synthesis. This way you wouldn't waste our time trying to prove to you the obvious. Dr.K.  14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks, McGeddon, for changing it to 'claimed' in the article. This is more appropriate indeed. I'm happy you're able to see it. -- Nazar (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the only problem I could find - I see no further issues with the paragraph. That you can pick holes in Edamaruku's commentary doesn't make any difference here; I'm sure many editors could easily pick holes in Prahlad Jani's statements, but it would be inappropriate for them to start deleting content or adding their own commentary on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comment

All this is completely insufferable. When looking into something using an "encyclopedia" I expect to be provided with ALL possible relevant sources of information and allowed to draw my own conclusions, particularly in the case of something fringe or with limited research/sources of information. Anything less is deliberately of at the very least unnecessarily biasing the perspective of the reader. This lowers the quality of your publication to the base mental fishing techniques of common advertisements.

This is my opinion and I believe it to be of well founded logic.

Thank you, Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.33.18 (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Alex. Since the consensus so far seems to be in favour of inclusion of the info, I'm restoring it to the article. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We cannot restore WP:OR. This request for comment has ended. Noone has commented except this anonymous editor. This is not consensus. I will report any attempt to restore this synthesis and/or I will request protection of the article if any attempt is made to restore this improper synthesis. Dr.K.  13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already edited the article, just now reading your comment, dear Dr.K. You may, however, pursue your point. Invite more people to express their opinions. I understand the drawbacks of the info you point out. However, in my opinion, NPOV is more important, and it must be ensured through overview of the flaws of the IRA criticism... Thanks... -- Nazar (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus - there are three editors on this talk page who clearly consider the content to be original research. It's entirely inappropriate to include an individual editor's personal thoughts regarding a YouTube video. Misplaced Pages articles would be unreadable if they encouraged every passing editor to chip in with their own opinions and interpretations - we should only ever quote a reliable source's analysis of a video, we shouldn't provide our own. --McGeddon (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am grateful for your assistance McGeddon in trying to clarify this point for the umpteenth time to this editor. Maybe we can ask for administrative assistance because this is a clear cut case of disruptive editing. Dr.K.  14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dr. K., but your comments are offensive and a clear cut case of a personal attack aimed at me. I'm doing my best to ensure the NPOV of the article. I'm letting all the interested editors express their view and also remove the information which they think is inappropriate. I respect McGeddon's edits and his logic. I do not claim my edits are 100% perfect; your comments are, however, intolerant and aggressive towards me. Thanks for understanding. -- Nazar (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry too that you think I personally attacked you. And I am even more sorry that you do not seem to understand what a personal attack is. I commented on your editing not on you. This, by definition, is not a personal attack. If you do not believe me ask someone else. Thank you. Dr.K.  14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nazar You wrote: I understand the drawbacks of the info you point out. However, in my opinion, NPOV is more important, and it must be ensured through overview of the flaws of the IRA criticism I really don't think you do. You cannot combat perceived NPOV issues by using original research and improper synthesis. Please point out to me where in policy it is stated that "To correct perceived NPOV problems an editor is allowed to engage in original research or improper synthesis" Until such time as you find such a quote I would request you stop your disruptive and tendentious editing. Dr.K.  14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And I would request you to stop your personal attacks. Please also stop imperatively ordering me whether I should edit or not and also please stop calling my good faith editing 'disruptive' over and over again. I got your opinion, mine is different. Your behavior is clearly offensive and oppressive. -- Nazar (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on my behaviour is a no no. You just crossed over into a personal attack. This is not the first time you resort to personal attacks when you talk to me. I will report this to an admin so that he can help you stop victimising other editors with your aggressive comments. Thank you. Dr.K.  15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat that the info I tried to include is important to the NPOV of the article, in my opinion. If more people speak in its support, I'd consider restoring it again (although the form and references used may change to better suit the Wiki Guidelines). If not, I'll respect the consensus so far expressed. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All you need to do is find a reliable source that has analysed the video. If nobody ever has, then we can't describe any analysis of it here. The important thing is to make sure that we aren't misrepresenting the video by claiming that it proves anything that isn't actually shown - although most of the paragraph talks about how Edamaruku "feels" and "accuses", we should maybe change "points out" to something less objective. --McGeddon (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

McGeddon, thanks, I got no problem with the article as it is, as far as its the consensus. I'm too lazy to look for the more reliable references criticizing the video at this moment, and I'm not sure if there are any at all, because Edamaruku seems to hype his criticism and sell it well to the press, and nobody really cares if his arguments are reliable at all. He just makes a good show out of it, and that’s what everybody loves. I restored the info in reaction to the closed RFC and opinion expressed there, which, together with my own opinion provides for some reason to include the info. Since you and Dr. K. clearly oppose the inclusion, I don't mind the removal for the meanwhile. No problem. -- Nazar (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If this means "I will come back in a couple of months and try adding it again", please take a step back and re-read WP:OR. "Any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources" is right there in the first paragraph. If you have a genuine concern about the ramifications of this policy, and how you think it might be deficient, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, or discuss possible exceptions at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research. --McGeddon (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent comments. I couldn't have said it better myself. Dr.K.  15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ye. You should learn from McGeddon, because your comments were not so great :) In case you take the trouble to report me again, I'll take the trouble to cite all the offensive stuff coming from you (generally, mind your style and emotions, they aren't really that positive); if not, I'll probably be to lazy do to that. haha ;) - Nazar (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor; by all means take issue with Dr K's comment that your editing appears to be tendentious, and explain why you think it isn't, but directly criticising someone's "emotions" is crossing the line. Even if you put a little smiley face on the end. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"I will report this to an admin so that he can help you stop victimising other editors with your aggressive comments." "stop your disruptive and tendentious editing" "trying to clarify this point for the umpteenth time to this editor. Maybe we can ask for administrative assistance because this is a clear cut case of disruptive editing." "I will report any attempt to restore this synthesis" "You just crossed over into a personal attack" etc., etc. -- these are rather aggressive accusations and threats, in my opinion, as well as trying to use selective references from the Wiki Rules and policies to intimidate an editor. That is just my feeling, sorry if it's wrong. And, should we really continue this discussion here for so long? Is it really related to the article content? I think I stated clearly enough that I respect the current consensus and I'm not going to change it back until more reasons/references are there... Aren't you just using the moment for a personal attack against me? -- Nazar (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You may not understand the ramifications of your aggressive accusations against me. User McGeddon has also told you to stop attacking me personally yet you keep coming back. I will not try to explain to you why my comments are not a personal attack against you because I already did so before yet you seem not to understand this. I will let Prodego try and explain to you why your comments victimise and aggressively attack me even if they are followed by smileys and other visual gimmicks. Dr.K.  16:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In case someone neutrally reviews this, I may add "You may not understand the ramifications of your aggressive accusations against me.", "you keep coming back", "your comments victimise and aggressively attack me" -- at least from my point of view I'm not happy to have someone say me all that. And it feels like pushing me out of the article editing process, while it's obvious that I'm practically the only major contributor representing an alternative view from that of Dr.K's. That feels bad... -- Nazar (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You said while it's obvious that I'm practically the only major contributor representing an alternative view from that of Dr.K's But you know very well that I am not the only one who objected to your edits because your edits are synthesis and original research. Yet you keep singling me out. Singling out an editor is never good and more so when the editor is not the only one who told you not to proceed with your edits. I am sorry you feel bad because I pointed out to you that I feel victimised by your comments. If you stop singling me out and commenting on me personally I will have no reason to feel personally attacked. So please just stop commenting on me personally. Thank you again. Dr.K.  17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've stopped this long time back, having said that I respect the consensus after the portion in question had been removed. I did not try to edit war or restore it. So, what's the problem? All my subsequent edits to the article were intended to add new referenced information (check history). You were the one to call my edits 'disruptive', threaten and report me. You were the one to cherry pick the messages I added to show them in a negative way. And you are the one who keeps provoking me, because I need to reply something in my defense. The only thing you need to do is say like 'issue solved, no more problems', but you'll have to say that also everywhere you already reported me for some alleged 'violations'. I'm referring to you just because you are the one who does it. It's nothing personal, but your signature is there. -- Nazar (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also note again that there's no real article related issue here which hasn't been solved at the very beginning of this discussion. So, I don't really see how this can be in Misplaced Pages:COOL spirit... -- Nazar (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above in my edit-conflict reply to you and stop commenting personally on me. Then everything will be cool. Dr.K.  17:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much McGeddon but this is not the first time this user has done this. He was warned by user Prodego in the past and yet here they are repeating the same attacks again. I have reported this behaviour to Prodego. Dr.K.  16:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of the article itself, I mean I may come back with my point after some time if there are new reasons. These reasons may include a new consensus, or new opinions expressed here, or new arguments. It's hard to draw a clear line between the personal analysis/synthesis and neutral rendering, especially in the case of a video. In my opinion, WP:FILMPLOT should apply in such cases, and this policy should be extended to take into account the shorter video materials used as vital arguments in Wiki articles. -- Nazar (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:FILMPLOT#Documentaries clearly says that "Documentaries present a special case, as they present themselves as recounters of fact." --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That's good enough for me. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do hope that someone does choose to report "Nazar" as it will expose the subjective and hypocritical tone of the other editors here, it would seem from an external perspective that you are squabbling like six year olds, and a very small proportion of what you have collectively written is useful or pertinent.

Thank you Alex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.33.18 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Can really be removed without impairing the neutrality of the rendering? We are speaking about 2010 tests. -- Nazar (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• In short, yes it can because the removed sentence is a personal observation not supported by reliable sources and not attributable to a third party. Thus it cannot be allowed. Any perceived neutrality issues cannot be corrected by engaging in original research and synthesis. Find a reliable source which makes the same observation about the time the video was taken and attribute it to that source and that should be satisfactory. If not, it cannot be included under the WP:OR policy. Dr.K.  17:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • hmmm. the source of it is the same as that of the other related statements. the video is published by Edamaruku and is a key point of his criticism. if you think this source isn't reliable, you should remove all of the related info, and not cherry pick the points which you like in it. -- Nazar (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It has nothing to with the source. It is that the removed observation is not reported by third party reliable sources but by a Misplaced Pages editor, making it a personal observation, i.e. WP:OR. Please see also my comments below. Dr.K.  17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is reported by Edamaruku, because he is the one who provided the video. The sentence uses only directly available material, no personal observations whatsoever :) -- Nazar (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can you quote a reliable source that wrote that sentence? Dr.K.  18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You mean literally? Weren't you the one who was warring my edits because of allegedly 'too much quotations', saying it's not encyclopedic? the source is Edamaruku. the date is there in his video, as well as Polish language subtitles :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can you provide a diff where I told you that you use too many quotations, especially the ungrammatical and in scare quotes 'too much quotations'? Regardless, the video is a WP:PRIMARY source. It cannot be analysed by us. Dr.K.  18:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. Check the discussion of the Inedia article for that diff. I'm too lazy to read it fully through again and find things for you there, which you should remember better than me. And sorry, English isn't my native language, I do not claim it to be grammatically perfect. -- Nazar (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oh. Whatever :) I love you so much, here are the direct quotes from your edits: "I don't think we need direct quotes. This direct quote approach is more suited to a magazine or newspaper than to an encyclopaedic article. Also now that we have the main article for the person we have to follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE all the better.", "...there is too much detail in the direct quotations...". Look it up in Talk:Inedia/Archive_2. It seems you choose whatever reasoning imaginable to push my edits out of the article :) haha -- Nazar (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Quote: "...there is too much detail in the direct quotations..." is gramatically way better than what you quoted above: 'too much quotations', so I was right about the grammar. And yes I stand by the statement. You should not fill an article with direct quotes from a source. Also please keep this conversation professional. Throwing words like "love" around drops the level of this conversation to new lows and makes it very difficult to carry on, at least for me. Dr.K.  19:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Also there is no neutrality to be rendered. We are just reporting on the criticism of the Indian Rationalist Association. That's all. We are not supposed to criticise or analyse their criticism. That would be a violation of our neutrality WP:NPOV policies. Criticism of the IRA claims should be left to third parties and not to us as Misplaced Pages editors. Dr.K.  17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the removed sentence does not include any criticism of IRA or any kind of analysis. It just tells the date and identifies the language which appear in the referenced material. -- Nazar (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is still a personal observation. No place for it in the article as explained above. But let's wait for a few other opinions. That's what an RFC is for, after all. Thank you. Dr.K.  17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• What you are asking me to do is to find a third party source which comments on the comments of Edamaruku. Now, why should we make it so complicated (consider the odds of finding a reliable comment on the comment) if we have direct material from Edamaruku. It should be rendered in its completeness. -- Nazar (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• You cannot comment on the video directly. This would be a WP:PRIMARY source. We need secondary sources which commented on the video. Anyway let's wait for other editors' opinions because we are not going to agree obviously and frankly I feel that I have explained all the points that need explaining. Let someone else do a little of the typing needed to carry these points across. Dr.K.  18:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not commenting on the video. The policy of WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements... .... For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot...". That's what the sentence in question does. It gives straightforward description of the material, without any interpretation. I can also provide a direct text citation from that video, since the subtitles are in text form. -- Nazar (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• It also states:Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. . You are trying to make an explanatory statement about when the video was made. It is not allowed. But I am not going to reply any further. Let other editors now comment. I am done here for the moment. Dr.K.  19:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here are the direct quotes you asked for: "Prahlad Jani “Bathing” 2003 -- nie podawano mu żadnego jedzenia, ani wody; nawet kiedy pozwalano mu na kąpiel, ilość wody była mierzona przed i po kąpieli", which says in Polish 'he wasn't given any food neither water; even when he was allowed to bath, the quantity of water was measured before and after the bathing', then the video goes on showing the alleged 'obstruction by devotees' in 2010, but the overlaid comments in Hindi say just the same as for the 2003 tests -- "65 साल से प्यासा", which means '...a 65 year old man...' ('65 year-old parched person' literally), and in 2010 he was already over 71... I happen to know a bit of Hindi too :) haha. There's also a Hindi comment below the 'obstruction' video also saying directly that it is from 2003. I can provide the screen-shots if necessary :) -- Nazar (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And one more thing. The video itself is a primary source (because it shows the coverage of an event), but the comments in Polish and Hindi aren't that. They were added by a secondary source and the official Wiki policy says: "Misplaced Pages articles usually rely on material from secondary sources.". Hope that makes the point clear enough :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is an example screen-shot indicating the date of 2003 for your convenient viewing: Bathing. It's taken directly from that video material. :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have opened another report on WP:ORN, the original research noticeboard. Since this RFC is open and there is no consensus for adding your material I would advise that we wait until a consensus is formed and stop the edit war to add the material. Dr.K.  21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who started the edit war. And you are the one who repeatedly removed my fully referenced edits. I don't see any reason why the material should not be restored. It has been amended to be in full accordance with the reference requirements in Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry to say that, but now it's obviously you who's being 'disruptive'. -- Nazar (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding the same synthesis in different forms. Until someone else agrees with you there is no consensus. So the stable version shall remain. If you continue the edit war you will be reported and mind your language please. Calling me disruptive without reason is aggressive. Dr.K.  21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference rationalistinternational1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Experts baffled as Mataji's medical reports are normal http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_experts-baffled-as-mataji-s-medical-reports-are-normal_1380169

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment