Talk:East–West dichotomy/Archive 1

Preliminary reactions
The author of the article is to be congratulated. This is a valuable addition, though it is really a draft. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact, it is very much in the spirit of what I take Wikipedia to be. It opens the possibility a valuable contribution.

Still, it needs to be pruned and shaped in order to make it encyclopedic, not a summary of a monograph, and to make it less personal and a better reflection of the state of the discussion. First, I would support shortening the list of references, so that an ordinary reader knows where to start. I will try to get back to start on this if there is no objection. ch (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. It's great if you can address the obvious issues and trim this into an encyclopedic article. Whenever you can get to it, there's no rush. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

the problem with the "East-West" terminology is that it isn't fixed but shifting with context. There are in reality four large cultural blocks in Eurasia, Western Europe (Western Christianity, Latin-inluenced), Eastern Europe and Russia (Eastern Christianity, Greek-influenced), The Middle East (the Islamic world and Greater Persia, Arabic-influenced), South Asia (Greater India, Sanskrit-influenced) and the Far East (Chinese-influenced).

The "West" in this dichotomy is always Western Europe, but the "East" may be any one of the other three. So, by heaping up soundbites that just contain "East and West", this article runs a great risk of WP:SYN. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

copyright notice
A copyright violation notice was placed on this article stating the article was copy-pasted from a website. It is noted that the IP who placed the notice is a sock account for the creator of the article as well as the website from which it was allegedly copy-pasted. However, the article has been substantially rewritten. As of this date, I cannot find any sentence which is copypasted -- and any similarities are due to subject matter. I would like to point out that simple lists of books and references are public information and have no copyright protection, so I have removed the copyright tags from those sections also. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to the article's history, some sections were copy & paste jobs from The East West Dichotomy, then rewritten - as you said. So I added that website under Further Reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.69.199.179 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The copyright violations originally copypasted into the article by the blocked account were removed and deleted from the history of this article. The article was rewritten using proper secondary sources. This follows Wikipedia guidelines for dealing with these issues. The website you wish to add is considered to be a promotional spam site per the discussion at Articles for deletion/Thorsten J. Pattberg and should not be restored. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What data is behind the map?
What is the source of the map?

Look here!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.168.5.62 (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why there is no Islam in India?

Shouldn't the map be converted to SVG (in far future)?

These notes should be added to the image, but I hope, that:

1). this article is visited oftener than the image;

2). the map is enough important for the article to discuss it here.

Best regards.

Copyright
This article was created from and copied and pasted from The East-West dichotomy (written by Thorsten Pattberg) without proper referencing. The user CactusWriter deleted this article s earlier history (so that it looks his own creation), banned the creator and several users, initiated the defaming and blocking of the author, and keeps defending his rude actions and reverts by referring to an AfD about the author, an AfD which he himself initated. So, COI in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.40.208.93 (talk • contribs) August 30 2009
 * Cleaning issues from an article does not create a COI. I have removed the tag. If you believe that there is a COI and wish additional review, please consider requesting it at WP:COIN. I have also removed the copypaste tag, as I see no duplication. Please provide specific examples here of copyrightable material copied from that website. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what the acussed, Cactuswriter, wrote himself above:

"The copyright violations originally copypasted into the article by the blocked account were removed and deleted from the history of this article. The article was rewritten using proper secondary sources."

It was, of course, rewritten by himself. He tried hard to change to content of the article to make it look like "similiar in subject matter". In the references and additional books sections however, you can still see a 1:1 copy&past from The East-West Dichotomy, even some page numbers that in this article's context make no sense but do, naturally, in the orginal. Also, the long list of names in the article he could have impossible produced himself. As Cactuswriter admitted above, he thouroughly checked the website The East-West dichotomy, collected the names he needed, copied the references, but did not mention his source. We will try to make this thing right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.40.205.40 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The alleged source is not a reliable source in line with Wikipedia's policies, and cannot be cited as a reference. It is also in violation of our strict policies on external links and cannot be added there. Further, as the alleged source is public domain, there is no copyright violation at play - plagiarism could possibly be argued, but not copyright violation.
 * Pressing on, I have to say that Pattberg's interventions have the appearence of attempts to WP:GAME the system by first introducing his unpublished original research onto Wikipedia, then raising copyright concerns to get a link back to his site in an attempt at self-promotion. Assuming good faith doesn't mean we have to be blind or stupid, because this all sounds a lot like quack to me.
 * The actions undertaken by CactusWriter are perfectly within the boundaries of article cleanup. I would kindly suggest that Pattberg spend his energy getting published and peer-reviewed per proper academic processes, which would immediately solve the notability issues of his research and possibly himself. Trying to begin building academic credentials with Wikipedia (instead of letting it end there naturally once the discourse is getting heard and talked about) tends to create the opposite effect of what was intended. Self-published pieces on Wikipedia (or linked to by Wikipedia) have a tendency to shift the focus away from the substance and onto the (quite poor) form employed by the author using such methods, eventually irremediably tainting any further legitimate research conducted by said author.
 * In other words, the harder Pattberg (or his close proxies) tries to begin with building his reputation on Wikipedia instead of within academic circles, the more difficult it may become to gain recognition among his peers. For your own good: forget Wikipedia. Focus on academia, get published, reviewed, criticised, rebutted, defended, reviled, admired, vindicated, and one day, Wikipedia will have an article about it all. And come that day, you'll most probably find you don't even care anymore. MLauba (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Included The East-West dichotomy in this article

 * Peace friends. I checked the deleted history and it reveals that this article is based on Mr P's The East-West dichotomy. His text is also here, here , here , here , is published in China and U.S. (it is in Books in Print here , and also ranks No 1 in the Top 100 New Release e-books, way ahead of The Idiot's Guide to U.S. History: . ;-) Overall, I think it is a good reference, it initiated this article, and it therefore should be included. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.194.131.106 (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the reference added to the book within the article is undue weight, lacking sourcing to show that it is particularly notable. That the term predates this 2009 book is fairly clear from the first reference alone, 2006's "Dismantling the East-West Dichotomy: Essays in Honour of Jan van Bremen" published by Routledge. This is not a reliable source. The book you reference above is very hard to find information about; doesn't have much to offer. I can't find any Google news coverage of the author; there's nothing at nothing at google scholar. Google books says that the book is self-published. I have no idea who "LoD Press" is; a google search hasn't been helpful. This book doesn't seem to clear Notability (books). Name-checking it in the article in that case, especially by itself, seems a bit like advertisement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This article was not copied&pasted from Dismantling (about Japanese anthropology) but from The East-West dichotomy (about the East-West dichotomy). You make things worse for standing on this copy&paste case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.79.64.87 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be operating from a basic misunderstanding of United States copyright law, which governs Wikipedia. Copyright covers the creative expression of ideas. Please indicate precisely what you perceive to be a copyright violation here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, it is not so much about the copyright as to about the proper citing of sources. Mr P says in his book and on all webpages that everything can be used as long as it is properly attributed. For example, Mr P attributed wikipedia when he in his text defines the term 'dichotomy'. Likewise, good wikipedians should also attribute his text if it was used to create an article. Why do people always have to fight over those little things, I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.79.64.87 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that this article was based on The East-West dichotomy by Mr P (an earlier version of this article)
Note that all bold, striked sections (highlighted by me) are connected to various references, ALL of which were copied&pasted and thus stay in the exact format (!!!) found in the The East-West dichotomy written by Mr P. The names in the list appear in the alphabetical order they appear in Mr P's work's reference section. Many wordings are 100% identical. And this is already a modified Cactuswriter version of the initial article which was entirely based on The East-West dichotomy, however it is already re-directed to 'cultural hemispheres' in an attempt to shift away the weight from the original source.

You can see clearly in this version of the article (of which the history was deleted by Cactuswriter so as to make it look his own version), that Cactuswriter still makes very strong use of Mr P's ideas, rich sources, list of names, categories, and definitions. He has to, as he has no clue about the subject matter. Note also, that at this stage, Cactuswriter thoughtfully still allows Mr P's work a small place in the External link section, which he later, once he felt save enough and Mr P was banned with the help of admin friends, deleted. He thought he no longer needed to cite the source of the article.

Mr Cactuswriter believes that in his position as a bulletproof adminterminator it is ok to steal other people's ideas and texts, as easy as collecting mushrooms in an ownerless forest. But it is stealing all the same. When Mr P showed up to talk about the great injustice, Cactuswriter started a hate campaign. During the AfD for Mr P, Mr P and others were blocked so that they could no longer participate in his own trial.

Have fun, it is insane, fricking outrageous and blatant plagiarism:

East-West dichotomy is the concept of two cultural hemispheres, an Eastern world contrasting with a Western world. The geographic orientation of this notion is relative to Eurasia, the Western world or Occident including Europe, and by extension those former European colonies where European cultures remained dominant, viz. the Americas and Australia, while the Eastern world or Orient includes the Middle East, and by extension the entire Islamic world, India and the Far East (East Asia and Southeast Asia). Sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific fall outside the dichotomy.

The East-West discourse has roots in differences between Greek and Chinese worldviews and philosophical origins,  and '''became popular during the orientalism movement of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.  Sometimes the contrast is drawn in favor of the analytical-based West, especially in emphasizing technological superiority,  while sometimes the advantage is given to the integration-based East, especially in emphasizing spiritual superiority.  Those who advocate the doctrine find it reflected in art, demography, education, history, ideology, linguistics, medicine, philosophy, politics, psychology, science-fiction, sociology and gender roles.'''

The conceptual contrast between Eastern society and Western society has been made by both Westerners and Asians. These include universal historians, scientists, educators and philosophers, such as Gu Hongming, Juergen Habermas, Edmund Husserl, Claude Levi-Strauss, Lee Kuan Yew, Li Dazhao, Ji Xianlin, G. E. R. Lloyd, Halford Mackinder, Kishore Mahbubani, Donella Meadows, Joseph Needham, Richard Nisbett, Kitaro Nishida, Edward W. Said, Amartya Kumar Sen, Oswald Spengler, Rabindranath Tagore, Arnold Joseph Toynbee, Ikeda Daisaku, Wei-Ming Tu, and Max Weber.

Plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core pinciples! Block those users on sight! (Jimbo Wales)
We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy, because this kind of plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles. All admins are invited to block any and all similar users on sight. Be bold. If someone takes you to ArbCom over it, have no fear. We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least. — Jimbo Wales 04:28, 28 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.79.64.87 (talk)
 * Whatever there may have been, there are no lingering plagiarism concerns, as I have completely rewritten with fresh research this article. Hence, no lingering content remains from the unreliable source. This way, we don't have to violate our verifiability policy, which is, of course, a core content policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No objections from me. Very good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.79.64.87 (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm glad that this resolves your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)