Talk:Caravan of East and West

Plagarism
Quoting a book is not plagarism if you give a citation. It's plagarism if you pretend they are your own words. Quoting short passages for context is the prefectly acceptable scholarly norm. Wjhonson 14:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not only passing off text; it's passing off ideas and research that're not your own and not properly citing your source.


 * And it still doesn't get over the hurdle that it's a factual error. See Whitmore, Bruce W., The Dawning Place, Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1984, pp. 60-65, and Star of the West, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 5-6. MARussellPESE 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote is to illustrate that the book says it. That the book says it, is a fact.  Whether or not that fact is true, does not invalidate that the book says it is true.  And I wasn't passing off this quote as my own, I cited it.  You just felt my citation was not complete enough.  Now it's more complete. Wjhonson 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That a book says it doesn't make it a fact. Here the book is wrong on this point. One would no sooner quote as fact a flat earth text in the Earth article, or a geocentric text for the Solar System article, than quote a text contradicted by two sources, one of which was contemporary with the events.


 * How many times do people here have to ask you to "do the research". And how long will it take you to accept that somebody else might have more information than you do? You pride yourself as a "professional". How about taking some pride in being thorough? MARussellPESE 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quotes do not have to be factual in your *opinion*, which is unsupported by the way. The quote is an actual quote from the abstract, and that quote is what I'm illustrating.  The quote is not illustrative of what you *feel* is a fact, it's only illustrative of ... itself. Wjhonson 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, the correct approach, in my opinion, which is all you have as well, if you have a contrary SOURCE then post it as well. Simply removing something you don't like, which you do on religious grounds alone, and which I properly researched and cited, is never going to fly. Wjhonson 15:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are actually saying that an encyclopedia should include information demonstrably incorrect? I have presented two documented sources. You have produced an abstracted outline of a personal statement. The weight of the sources clearly demonstrate this to be wrong. It's not my "opinion". It's not my religious belief. (This is about as bloody removed from Baha'i as you could get; and your assertion that I'm removing this on religious grounds borders on the paranoid frankly.) It's the supported evidence. There are several exhaustive histories of the period and biographies of `Abdul-Baha — don't you think one of them would have mentioned this? Having read most, I can assure you that they don't.

These interchanges with you are mind-numbing. You sieze all of one document of whatever dubious background, stand on it petulantly demanding of one-and-all that it be considered authoritative without question, and then criticize everybody with a different opinion for not doing their homework. You know, every so often somebody just might know more about a subject than you can Google. MARussellPESE 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And I have absolutely NO problem with you posting your references as WELL. I have a problem with removing statements simply because you have a personal belief that they aren't true.  Post all the statements pro and con, that is called scholarship.  Removing is called censorship. Wjhonson 23:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Personal belief" with two independent sources? And the best that contradicts is a summary of a personal statement made thirty years after the fact? One would no more post "the moon is made of green cheese (Jerry Mouse, 1945)" in the "Moon" article than post this. It's contradicted by two separate and better sources. Any high-school student can plaster an article with citations. Most do, and consider that to scholarship, when it's no more than bibliography-building. They also do a lot of cut-and-paste work and consider that scholarship too.


 * "Scholarship" means exercising some critical thinking, and evaluating sources prior to coming to a conclusion. MARussellPESE 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But my friend, no one is stopping you from posting your sources. Post them by all means.  Let the READER decide which is a valid source then if we can't agree.  I think the first hand statement of the woman who actually had the library designed and built is a very highly qualified source personally.  And yes, I can remember that the house I grew up in was blue thirty years later, so that has nothing to do with it.  And finally, it's her quote.  If Bush says "a spaceship landed in my backyard" that doesn't have to be a *fact* in order to be his *quote*.  It's still his quote, and in the article about him, it's relevant.  It may not be relevant in an article about "back yards".  This article is about this organization including it's library so yes a quote spoken by the primary mover, is definitly relevant, whether it's factual (in your opinion) or not.  I have YET to see your quotes from your sources for all your howling about them.  Are you afraid to post the actual quotes? Wjhonson 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Charges of religious censorship are ridiculous, and are deliberately (characteristically) inflammatory. This has no religious significance whatsoever.

Encyclopedias are not debating forums. They're a collection of facts — repeat: facts — presented so that the reader can familiarize themselves with them and seek additional sources. If a topic is controversial (Say, Arab-Israeli conflict) then naturally the article should present both views — because the conflicting view are part of the story. But no encyclopedia burdens a reader with "evaluating for themselves" over items that are cut-and-dried. We don't pawn off "scholarship" on the reader, we exercise it ourselves.

The reason I've not "posted" the quote is that they're both rather lengthy (Five pages in Dawning Place and two pages in Star of the West.), and available the old-fashioned way — in print. (I've extensively searched for these online, but Dawning Place is still under copyright, and Star of the West's electronic version isn't immediately available.) Do I have to type out seven pages of sources to get you to accept this? Where does it say that anyone has to actually present physical evidence when verifiable sources have already been presented? You've got specific citations. Check them out.

Besides, this article is about the "Caravan of East and West" isn't it? You authored it for pity's sake. It's not a forum for debating whether a particular chunk of marble has anything to do with this organization or the Baha'i Temple. (The actual cornerstone is limestone.) I'm trying to keep your bloody article from getting out-of-hand.

Frankly, the reason I don't want to add this is that I don't want to draw attention to what are a pattern of Sohrab's and Ms. Chanler's self-aggrandizing statements; this being the least noteworthy. This is an obscure, defunct group, and they deserve to rest in peace. MARussellPESE 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh gee no, let me just talk your word for it. You do have to post your "quote" if you want me to accept your source.  Doesn't that seem apparent by now?  Surely you have enough experience with me to know that I don't accept someone's word for anything. Wjhonson 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And don't exaggerate. There's no point in "typing out seven pages of sources" when the point of whether the stone came from Abdul Baha, or was intended for the temple, can be stated in a brief quote.  You just refuse to quote anything and that's what I object to.  I do my diligence to find and QUOTE my sources where they are in conflict.  Of course if there is no conflict then it's pointless to quote them, as everybody accepts it, or doesn't care.  But in the cases where there IS conflict, then yes you do have to quote your sources in order to resolve that conflict.  That's normal scholarly procedure.  And copyright is irrelevant, you *can* quote copyrighted works, copyright law does not prevent that, in fact it specifically states that you can do it. Wjhonson 19:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nettie Tobin did actually procure the stone
Naturally this passage is far to long to incorporate as a violation of Copyright, but as Wjhonson won't actually believe a source until somebody else presents it to him for inpsection — here it is.


 * "Although Nettie Tobin worked actively as a member of the Women's Assembly of Teaching, she was troubled by her financial inability to contribute to the building of the Temple. After praying often that God send her something to offer as a gift, she reportedly heard a voice on several occasions that told her to find a stone. Her inspiration most likely came from a letter written in June 1908 to the American Baha'is by Mirza Asadu'llah, the Persian Baha'i who had proposed the project to the Chicago House of Spirituality in 1903. In the letter Mirza Asadu'llah wrote, "Now is the time for expending energy and power in the erection of the edifice, be it a mere stone, laid in the name of the Bahai Mashrak-el-Azkar, For the glory and honor of the first stone is equivalent to all the stones and implements which will later be used there."


 * Shortly after the letter amved, Nettie Tobin visited a construction site near her home, just north of downtown Chicago. She sought out the project's foreman, told him about the Temple, and asked if he could offer her an inexpensive building stone. The foreman, enchanted with Nettie Tobin, showed her a small pile of limestone rocks, damaged and unfit for use, and invited her to take one. Later that day she and her neighbor wrapped one of the stones in a piece of carpet, tied clothesline around it, and dragged the bundle home, where they deposited it in the front hall.


 * On Labor Day 1908, two days after acquiring the stone, Nettie Tobin requested assistance from Mirza Mazlum, an elderly Persian friend who had become a Baha'i after seeing a number of Baha'i prisoners martyred. Along with Mrs. Tobin's brother, Leo Leadroot, they would take the stone to Grosse Pointe, where they would meet Cecilia Harrison and Corinne True.


 * The threesome had difficulty convincing the conductor of the State Street horsecar to allow the stone on board. Yet Mrs. Tobin insisted, he gave in, and they placed the stone, still tied in the carpet, on the back platform. After traveling through Chicago to the north side of the city, they transferred to another car and rode to the corner of Central and Ridge avenues in Evanston, probably the station closest to the Temple site at that time." Because they were still six blocks away from the site, the stone would have to be carried the rest of the way by hand. But once they had gone about three blocks, the stone became too heavy to carry any farther, and they began dragging it along the ground.


 * The trip took much longer than Nettie Tobin had anticipated. Corinne True and Cecilia Harrison, who had been waiting at the site, became worried and started back toward the station. They soon came upon Mrs. Tobin's group. At this point Mirza Mazlum, apparently inspired by photographs showing young men carrying stones from the quarry at Ashkhabad for the Baha'i Temple there, begged his companions to place the stone on his back. He managed to progress another half block to an old, unoccupied farmhouse, where they left the stone in the yard overnight.


 * Very early the next morning Nettie Tobin returned alone to the farmhouse with a homemade cart and a fire shovel. When she tried to lift the stone into the cart, she broke the cart's handle and, in so doing, injured her wrist. A man nearby, responding to her difficulties, helped her to replace the stone in the cart and fixed the handle for her. After resuming her trek for a half block, she enlisted the aid of a newsboy, who helped her reach the west corner of the land. As they dragged the cart across the two lots, it fell apart, leaving the stone sitting amidst the rubble. Her deed accomplished, Nettie Tobin said some prayers and left for home.


 * In the months ahead the stone provided a focal point for Bahi'i gatherings. Not everyone, however, was enchanted with the new addition, particularly Thornton Chase. In a letter dated 2 October 1908 he wrote, "I presume if the members of the H. of S. [House of Spirituality] should each do a similar thing, quite a number of persons would be delighted, taking it as an evidence that the House of Spirituality was really 'doing something.' "


 * `Abdu'l-Baha had already sent a stone marker for the Temple site. The stone was possibly of the same material as the Bab's marble sarcophagus, a gift of the Baha'is of Rangoon, Burma. Other stones were reportedly sent by Baha'is from various parts of the world. Yet none of these ever reached the Temple grounds. Only Nettie Tobin's contribution, "the stone which the builders refused," would be available to serve as the marker dedicated by `Abdu'l-Baha in 1912.



'Abdu'l-Baha, had sent a stone, but it never got there. One may presume that either he sent it to Sohrab, or he came into possession of it — but all the sources agree that he did not actually follow through and forward whatever stone was in his possesion to the project and kept it.

As "diligence" to Wjhonson is doing nothing more than trolling for and cutting-and-pasting online sources — published sources being too difficult to look up apparently — hopefully this will finally pass inspection. MARussellPESE 16:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely incorrect and self-serving. It took you two months to find this quote I would note. I'm sure you were trolling around online for a while with no success.  I happen to have quite a number of printed sources at my disposal, including the majority of what I cite on wikipedia. You should probably do more editing and less attacking.Wjhonson 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I have the book in my possession. Have for years. It was a high-school graduation present. I had it open during our discussions. I just have a life, and a job, and a family — so typing out four pages of text for you, Wjhonson, on a fifth-tier article, is a fifth-tier priority. I'm doing this on a Saturday with some free time while the kids are at the movies. This is another two hours of my life wasted — but this did need to be closed as I'm the one who opened it.
 * So sorry that transcribing this for you wasn't a little more important to me. My bad. Giving you the citations at the very beginning of this discussion wasn't nearly enough. Neither was basing the argument on them. I thought the policy is Cite Your Sources, not Demand That Other Editors Type Out Their Sources So That Nobody Has to Look Them Up. MARussellPESE 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Caravan of East and West. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060411213248/http://www.parliamo.com:80/rates.htm to http://www.parliamo.com/rates.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)