Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.82.14.35 (talk) at 18:04, 5 June 2010 (→Seth Material article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jack-A-Roe is taking a semi-wikibreak and will fully return to Misplaced Pages later.

Welcome to Jack-A-Roe's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.

"ethnoreligious group"

Jews in American politics: essays does, in fact, use the term, in three places. On page 158 (as cited), and on pages 162 and 166. Jayjg 05:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. Sorry about the misunderstanding, I realize now that lots of work has already been done on this, that's why I withdrew what I had written right after I posted it. I'll re-post my question in a different way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer and activist source

Would you mind following up on the conversation at the Reliable Source discussion re: the Institute for Critical Animal Studies]? Thanks. I've clarified the COI of the "Institute." 842U (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Seth Material article

Verbal has started attacking the Seth Material article again. First he started reverting my revisions, though I was trying to make the terminology more neutral. Then he tried to delete portions of it, and I restored them (today he again deleted portions). He also placed a tag on it about the neutrality being disputed -- and he did that AFTER I made extensive changes to satisfy him. He's clearly spoiling for a fight. We've been through all this before, and if a few editors who are supportive of the article would show up, it would be helpful. Thanks!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack-A-Roe, the Seth Material article has now been taken over by atheists and skeptics, and they are in the process of removing much of the information that was there and inserting critical information. I allowed myself to get too passionate about the article, and then -- instead of apologizing -- I made a spirited defense of myself and refused to lick their asses. Verbal got one of his friends in an administrative position to kick me off.

The group of editors who had come to the defense of the article before, including you, are now too exhausted by edit-warring to do anything about it (or perhaps they aren't on Misplaced Pages now). So it appears that the nature of the article is going to change drastically.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you are violating canvassing. You really haven't a clue. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassing; I was just telling him what had happened. You are hopelessly biased, Brangifer, much more so than I.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote at the start of this thread ("...if a few editors who are supportive of the article would show up, it would be helpful.") is definitely canvassing. At least you are beginning to realize you are biased. I have never denied it. (and I'm not an admin.) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer, you and the other skeptics/atheists do plenty of canvassing, but you do it on the Fringe forum and other forums like that. You may not run around from one person's talk page to the next, but you still manage to get your friends in. Any article that is on any subject which is off the beaten path is under attack on Misplaced Pages by people like you and Verbal. You are part of the problem.

Jack-A-Roe, I'm sorry this has spilled over onto your Talk page.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Caleb Murdock's post on my talk page is not canvassing - for many reasons. There is no community discussion or vote in progress, and I have previously entered comments on the talk page of the article being discussed. I appreciate that he informed of the situation.

For perspective, I don't consider that I have been "supportive of the article" - I'm not even sure what that statement means. What I am supportive of is appropriate use of sources according to Misplaced Pages policy. There are many situations when primary sources are acceptable, in particular when a primary source is notable it can be used as a source for what it states about itself. An example is a fictional work used as a source for a description of the plot. In the case of the Seth Material, I see no problem with using those notable best-selling books as sources to support a description of the philosophy of the author. That is not to imply in any way that the source can be used to support an interpretation of those philosophical ideas as a description of reality or science. Of course, that would be an inappropriate use. But the article is not about science, it's about a spiritual belief system as described by that particular author. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal has now cut the Seth Material article to one-third it's former size.--ESB60 (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.145.95 (talk)

Jack-A-Roe, I'm wondering what value you think your recent edits on the Seth Material article have? Verbal has deleted 90% of the information (except some of the references and the criticisms). With the article chopped down to nothing, what good does it do for you to go over there and quibble with him on format? Do you agree that so much information should have been cut out? If not, don't you want to revert at least some of it? Verbal gets away with his deletionism because other editors have no balls.--72.82.14.35 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome just created

Hi JAR,

You may be interested in the CSAAS article, there's a huge amount of sources (I've just a tiny sampling on the talk page). My own start was heartily inadequate but there are other priorities tugging at me. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pederasty in ancient Greece

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pederasty in ancient Greece. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pederasty in ancient Greece. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Recovered memory

I thought he said it was from cz.Misplaced Pages, rather than citizendem. In any case, there's no tag specifying from which article it came from. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arthur - no problem, that's what I thought too when I first saw it. But then I noticed there is a Citizendium tag, that's how I found the original article. He used {{cz}} at the top of the references section — that template makes a link to the same article on Citizendium. I understand your concerns about a possible content fork. But the CZ content has clearly been well-researched, so we should find a way of using it. It could either be a merge, or a split, depending on where the sources lead. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hebephilia#Karen Franklin

Up for weighing in on the above linked topic? Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-pedophile activism" Article Nominated for Deletion

You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "Anti-pedophile activism." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the AfD process, please visit the page created for this purpose: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your input would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC).