Talk:Weltmer Institute of Suggestive Therapeutics

License
All material are taken from sources that are in the Public Domaine (before 1923) And can be accessible and read online by the general public. No new material is taken without permission. If it is necessary, it is included in the External Links.

The reason for creating this Wiki page is to provide American Historical Knowledge, more specifically the Development of Nevada, Missouri in the turn of the 19-20th century. Weltmer Institute was a major contributer for the development and heritage of Nevada, Missouri. More trains, bigger postal office and more human resources had to be implemented in the Town in it's beginning. The descendents of the local residence are still speaking about the institute till this day.

It is a work in progress and hopefully it will mature very quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fady Lahoud (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

99% of the material are taken directly from the original Weltmer Institute Pamphlet that was included as an appendix in the book "The Healing Hand" [4th ed., 1922 by S.A. Weltmer] (Public domain). It was reformatted with the actual "Wiki" structure and modified to eliminate subjective form and modern presentation. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This article
appears to be a regurgitation of a primary source. I am attempting to trim it and get some secondary backbone in ... Alexbrn talk 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It took me a long time and energy to enter all this text and you have took the initiative alone to deleted practically all the text under some pretense that you seemed to have subjectively invented the idea that, from your own perspective and believes, what should be and what should not be in this Wikipedia page without consulting nobody else on that mater and without looking at the "primary sources" and taking the time to do a comparative. Instead you have declared out of the blues and from you own that you should delete it. You did not have the excuse that it was copyright material, so you have invented the idea of "Primary source regurgitation", by trying to Reinvent a Standard on what should be Wikipedia Policies. Plus it was not a simple regurgitation but a reformatting of the primary sources and selective editing. I do not accept it, I will never accept this kind of behavior and nobody has to be subjected to accept your Personal Policies and Standard. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Sorry, it not my personal policy but Wikpedia's. See WP:PSTS: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." If you want to have this content on the web, it is best hosted somewhere other than on Wikipedia. Alexbrn talk 17:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My Question is: Did you look at the Primary Source at all, or you have assumed to be so?

And if this is the case, then 90% of Wikipedia is Primary Source material. There is a double standard here. No "Original Sources" no "Primary Sources" no "unreferenced sources" etc. There is an IMPERFECTION and a FLAW in your interpretations of the Wikipedia Policies. Plus the Policies themselves are Flawed and subjected to re-considerations. I will See to it with the Real Administrators of Wikipedia, so that they revise their flawed policies and make them less susceptible to personal interpretations. And when I do that and succeed to make Wikipedia more perfect, policies will have to change. I am a Constructor not a follower, if the laws are not perfect then every citizen have the DUTY to change them, we do not live in the world of Monarchs where the Elite dictates the rules.--Fady Lahoud (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Then change them, don't ignore them. Please explain each of your edits using WP:Edit summaries, don't change past tense to present tense or duplicate sources as you did in your reversions. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

First I will make it Mandatory to put at least a Notice on the page to inform the Creators that put efforts in WIKIPEDIA of Creating articles before some inexperienced in Life and out of misplaced zeal, decides to disrespectfully delete big chunks of the text. They should have put their intentions like they should do and that it is usually done by experienced professionals.

Second, when they take the initiative to delete a paragraph they should consult with others on that mater. There has to be a Democratic vote on what to take out and what to leave in the page. And not one person who, with his good intentions ends up vandalizing it.

Third, do not take it lightly what you delete, be special careful on everything that you take out and double check your stuff to make sure your not mistaken in your judgments or interpretations of the Law. Be respectful and do not Discourage Creators that put an effort, treat others like you wish to be treated. It is not like I have put garbage in Wikipedia.

Forth, Tell your selves, is this material of interest to somebody. If it is not for you, it may be for somebody else. Is it garbage, is it vandalism, is it misinformation. etc. For copyright material, I understand, but for "Primary Source" that is outdated WHERE THE CIVIL and International LAW itself Permits on Reproducing it, Reediting it, reprinting it, etc. it is unacceptable (we are not in school, plus Wikipedia is free of charge)

Fifth. What I can see of Wikipedia is it lacks the "Balls" of taking the responsibility of promoting and accepting "Original Ideas". The Ideas has always to be referenced from somebody else work or already published by another "ENCYCLOPEDIA" with "Balls" to backup it up. LEARN it.

Sixth, "This Primary Source" philosophy has to be Immediately PUT DOWN because of the bias it represents. Plus it is not Constitutional. It opposes Freedom of Speech. If I want to put the whole Bible in Wikipedia, or the Civil Law in it, or the Torah, or the Zohar, or the Scientific papers. etc, I cannot because of this Policy and yet there is tones of Wikipedia pages that are "Primary Sources" but it gets somehow subjectively accepted anyways. So you see that this in not Constitutional, because it is so bias, it opposes Freedom of the Press and at the same time there is an injustice that can flow easily form it. Do you understand what I am trying to do, I am working so that the world we are living in, be a more perfect and peaceful place. Do you oppose that? Are you with me or against me?

Seventh, The editors that edits other work of creators, have to be certified to do so. Plus they have to create at least some good articles of their own. They have to be accounted for especially it they lack the wisdom and respect. Unless this is what they want to do by purpose, to discourage, to misinform, to infiltrate by night, to Control the Media, what should be said and what should be not and how, for political agendas. We must not be naive to believe that all people are saints.

These are the first Seven Perfect Points to draw a Perfect Magic Circle, six on the circumference and one in the middle. Men can Achieve that Men can Conceive for a perfect World. --Fady Lahoud (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not going to happen. We aren't going to change our core policies for you. As for Freedom of Speech, you clearly don't understand the US Constitution. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." We aren't the US Congress, and the First Amendment doesn't apply to private organisations. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyways, I will not start a war with you, clearly you cannot do nothing about the mater. You can only follow orders and guidelines from above. So I have decided to create the text in another webpage and put it as an external link.
 * This mater is bigger than you, it is bigger than me and even it is bigger that this article that is not so important to do. What is the most important it to create Peace and Justice. Do you understand what I am trying to do? I wanted to make your life a simpler one, unless you are paid to do this. Instead of making the policies in a gray zone for us to judge what is too much "Primary sources", the guidelines have to be more specific on the amount allowed to put and have a compromise. If we cannot put a whole Bible in it at least 10 pages maximum allowed in "Primary sources". This has to be out of Copyright and clearly identifying the origin and the author, so that it will not be considered plagiarism. It is like the Images that we upload in Wikipedia.


 * I do not understand why do you persist on retaining policies that leads to ambiguity and injustice.


 * I will have to make contact with the co-founders of Wikipedia and discuss the seven points. Tell me, is it against the law to do so?

--Fady Lahoud (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)