User talk:Goethean/2005

ID
Thanks from one zen practioner to another. Stirling Newberry 22:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:Contemporary_Philosophers
I deleted Category:Contemporary_Philosophers as requested on the Village pump (assistance). You can also add for a Speedy deletions for cases like this. More controversial deletions have to go through Votes for deletion. BTW, do you know that you can sign your edits with ~ ? Happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 07:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen
What was wrong with just reverting it to the non-violating version of 18:34, 2004 Sep 21 by Andries? Surely that would have been preferable to what is now in the rewrite at Andrew Cohen/Temp? Now we're going to lose all of that work. Uncle G 20:28, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * I believe that the verbiage at Andrew Cohen/Temp is another copyvio anyways. So now I have reverted to Andries' version, which I must have missed first time around. --Goethean 20:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That was my belief, too. ☺  I've marked Andrew Cohen/Temp as a speedy deletion candidate. Uncle G 20:52, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Did you see the author's comments at Talk:Andrew Cohen? --Goethean 20:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FACTS VfD
I am no longer participating in Wikipedia. Stirling Newberry 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Human
Goethean, could I ask you to consider working with us at Talk:Human to come up with a consensus version we can all live with? Quite a few editors object to the old version, and around the same number to the new version, so the best thing is to start from scratch and build it up slowly, which is what my compromise suggestion intends. Please do make suggestions for what you'd like to see added, or make the additions yourself. I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views. Then once we have a working model up and running, we can compare it to the old and the new versions, and see what the overall consensus is. Would that work for you? Best, SlimVirgin 08:49, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I want the wikipedia to acknowledge multiple points of view, and you want it to claim that all points of view except for reductive biologism are illegitimate. I don't see room for compromise there. --Goethean 14:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with the version of 1 March 2005? --Goethean 14:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alien Point of View
Hello!

On Talk:Human you say: "The scientific viewpoint should be noted as such. There is a difference between the beliefs of biologists and reality".

You might find this odd, but I must confess that I am utterly bewildered by this comment! It is very alien to me, right down to the use of english. I'd like to understand what your POV is so I can understand it better.

If it helps, I'll go first:

I'm (officially almost) a biologist and hmm, well, from my point of view:
 * I don't hold beliefs wrt biology (well not wrt the scientific part of it)
 * the whole point of science is to discover what reality is.

So basically a scientific statement made at any one time is supposed to be the best representation of reality that you are going to hear at that point in time.

So that really differs with what seem to be a number of assumptions/beliefs/ideas that are behind your statement. If you might, would you care to grant me some of your time and enlighten me as to what those are and why you hold them, please?

Thanks very much if you do! :-)

Kim Bruning 22:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * My views are very similar to those of the philosopher Ken Wilber -- I wrote the article on him. Yes, your views are what you concieve as reality, but so are the views of religious adherents. Science should be privileged above the claims of narrow religion --- see my contributions to Talk:Intelligent Design for my ferocious attitude towards creationists. This is because science is formalized observation, while dogmatic religion is sort of pre-formalized. But that doesn't make religion pure fiction. It is sort of distorted observation. And science is less distorted, but not undistorted. The conclusions of science are not the end of the story. Thus, a balanced view goes as follows: science says x, religions say y, z and q. This is not to pit science against religion, it is to try to achieve balance by giving each its due. After all, this is a better outcome than a continual edit war between science and religion, and that's sort of what you have in the American "culture wars". The ultimate goal is to achieve an integrated or holistic viewpoint that accounts for how some responsible observers can reach the conclusions of science, while other responsible observers can reach the conclusions of religion, and still others can reach other conclusions. Wilber has written a book on science and religion called "The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion" --Goethean 23:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly! Let me think about your answer for a while. If I have any questions later, I hope you don't mind if I come back? :-) Kim Bruning 23:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You are always welcome. --Goethean

NPOV: revolting?

 * Hope you two don't mind if I butt in here. Actually Rednblu, I think that NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept. It's just not being followed on the Talk:Human page. --Goethean 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, hello, Goethean. Good to have you in all of the conversations on the many pages.  8))  I guess I wrote carelessly on User talk:Hawstom without thinking enough how it would "sound."  I agree wholeheartedly with you--that 1) NPOV is an unsurpassingly beautiful concept and 2) NPOV is not being followed on the Talk:Human page.  The rest of what I said has some faulty Boolean logic.  8))  As you point out, obviously some people "who know in their heart with certainty unquestioned that Religion is wrong" are insisting that NPOV in its unsurpassingly beauty should be respected.  Would you agree?  ---Rednblu | Talk 00:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I am learning a lot from you. Please see my talk page for some thoughts on Rednblu and NPOV. Tom Haws 19:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism: God and Man
Goethan, here are my thoughts. Hinduism is not one religion but four religions, Smartism, Shaivism, Shaktism and Saivism. This is not suprising as the religion is over 5000 years old. Just as Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the same God but slightly differ in conceptions of God, Hindus all believe in one God but differ in their conceptions, the major difference between conceiving of God as Vishnu or Siva.

Basically, God is conceived as Vishnu or Shiva (Vaishnavism, and [Saivism and Shaktism] separately, and Smartism which considers all forms of God the same and a semantic difference. Smartism closely followed Advaita philosophy. The belief that man is essentially identical with the eternal immaterial spirit is only true of Advaita which stressed the impersonal Brahman and not a personal God unlike Ramanuja and Madhva who stressed a personal God like the Judaeo-Christian religions: The following web sites will give you a good overview of the relationship between Man and God. http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#The%20Theist%20Revolt and http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_93

The major philisophical school is Vedanta which is divided into Dvaita, Visishtadvaita and Advaita "iritual experiences. Dualism, Qualified Monism, Pure Monism&mdash;all these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realisation of the Absolute or the transcendental Trigunatita Ananta Brahman. Sivananada said the following: Madhva said: “Man is the servant of God,” and established his Dvaita philosophy. Ramanuja said: “Man is a ray or spark of God,” and established his Visishtadvaita philosophy. Sankara said: “Man is identical with Brahman or the Eternal Soul,” and established his Kevala Advaita philosophy.

A Dvaitin wants to serve the Lord as a servant. He wishes to play with the Lord. He wishes to taste the sugar-candy. A Visishtadvaitin wants to become like Lord Narayana and enjoy the divine. He does not wish to merge himself or become identical with the Lord. He wishes to remain as a spark. A Jnani merges himself in Brahman. He wishes to become identical with Brahman. He wants to become the sugar-candy itself." Hope this helps. Raj2004

Goethan, read this link, Question #7 in http://www.ssvt.org/Education/Hinduism%20FAQ.asp#What%20are%20the%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20What%20is%20their%20basis%20to%20be%20called%20different%20schools%20of%20Hinduism?%20Are%20they%20important%20to%20understand?|Different Please read question #7. Raj2004

Martin Heidegger quotes
Hi, the reason givenfor deleting all your quotes from this article was that most of them were unreferenced. Could you provide the source of each quote, that is, the work of Heidegger in which it appears, please? And if possible the edition and page number. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Human
The info is valid, however after removal of the sentence that it commented, I removed it because I did not see it relevant to discussion anymore. If you insist, I'll just rewrite it and leave it there. --Eleassar777 18:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh...I didn't know that the sentence that it commented on had been removed. Sorry. --Goethean 18:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"involutions", not "involution"
Please. The article titled involution is not about "involution in mathematics"; it's about involutions (plural!) in mathematics. Michael Hardy 23:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Holistic science?
Hi. I found you in the history of the Ken Wilber article. I recently picked up the orphaned Holistic science page and I'm floundering around looking for other people who might be interested in the subject. I am extremely lacking in knowledge of the subject, but find myself drawn to it nonetheless. Therefore I would appreciate the opportunity to interact with people who are more knowledgeable. The first question I wanted to ask was: Are you in favor of having an article with the title Holistic science? I have also created "Non-reductionist science" as a redirect to it. --Smithfarm 13:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of responses. One, there is clearly a methodology that Sheldrake and others use, and skeptics cannot tenably argue against accurately describing that methodology. Maybe it should be called something other than holistic science, although I see nothing wrong with that name. The simple fact is that there are several scientists and theorists who call themselves holists. One wonders what possible objection there would be to calling their activities "holistic science." Especially when "holistic science" brings up 10,000 google hits. Hello!


 * Ken Wilber talks frequently about "narrow science" and "broad science." In his usage, the latter is what he is doing, and includes, for example, the testimony of mystics, which would be ignored or explained away by "narrow science." I havent read Wilber's book on science, but I have read his more philosophical works which do touch on the subject. Here is another good reference. Sheldrake seems to call his scientific methodological paradigm "holism" or "organicism."


 * Two, I'm not sure whether "Goethean methodology" refers to the method of Goethe's Theory of Colors, or to Rudolf Steiner, or to both. I am familiar with the Theory of Colors, but not with Steiner. Perhaps M Alan Kazlev (who maintains an enormously informative website on New Age ideas) could hep us with the Steiner aspect.


 * Three, perhaps the article should be re-written (again), in response to the complaints of skeptics. Simply asserting that the methodologies of Goethe, Steiner, Sheldrake and Wilber diverge from that of reductionistic or physicalistic science seems like a pretty uncontroversial claim. I'm not sure if we can include Wolfram in that group, however. --Goethean 16:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I'm completely in favor of any attention (up to and including complete rewriting) you care to give to the page. I haven't had the opportunity yet to read any of the books you are referring to, or that I have linked to on the page - I was just shooting in the dark from stuff I found while Googling. So if any are inappropriate (Wolfram?) then I would suggest they be removed. The Goethean methodology is something I inherited from an earlier, somewhat incoherent version of the page. Maybe it, too, can be simply left out. Anyway, would you mind if I copied my question and your answer over to the Holistic science talk page? --Smithfarm 20:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine. --Goethean 22:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel
It's been determined that 216.45.221.155 (talk · contributions) is in fact Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings
Sorry I was not around for the VfD on Facts, but after increasing levels of right wing hostility and the corruption of the judicial process on wikipedia, I have decided to focus on my professional writing, instead of dealing with the constant threats and unpleasantness that seems to attend working on wikipedia. Stirling Newberry 18:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ID
Editorial, yes, pov, no. A fact is presented, and then a comment (albeit a rather leading comment) is made. I would have a hard time calling it pov. Not to mention, that your promise to remove pov contradicts the Sanger quote on your user page - Sanger said present all povs. I think I good case can be made for rewording that sentance, but on a page like this it would be much better done on the Talk page. In addition, your edit summary was misleading. Guettarda 18:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That "M Document" at Gospel of Matthew
This seemingly very knowing reference was added by a discontented Christianist a while back. No information. Does it mean anything to you? See my note at Talk:Gospel of Matthew''. Thanks! --Wetman 20:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human
I think the current issue is an acceptable compromise for now. I would prefer that the paragraphs after paragraph one would begin:
 * Biologically, ...
 * Behaviorially, ...
 * Spritually, ...

And that the paragraph be a little different - however, I don't think it warrants a totally disputed tag. I have read your comments. Trödel| talk 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

clarification: The Vedas and the Upanishads which follow are anonymous because they are considered to smrti or revealed scripture, the word of God, in Hinduism, which has no author, in contrast to shruti, what is remmbered, and is written by man. See Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita is in fact transcribed down by Vyasa

Raj2004

"Wholism"
I see what you mean. I've followed your example, and made it a redirect. By the standards of Criteria for speedy deletion it could be simply deleted, in fact. Let's see what happens next. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guru
hi Goethen, Thanks for your invitation to view on the article on Guru. I dont think i can make much contribution to the article in its present stage. There is a lot that can be added - difference between acharya and Guru, guru-geeta etc. Ramashray 05:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Integral Wiki
hi Goethean

I was very interested by your suggestion of an integral wiki and had a look at that site, but there doesnt appear to be much there, and the articles that are there are mostly pretty brief. An Integral Wiki project would be a very interesting and worthy ideal, but it would be extremely tedious to have to rewrite everything from scratch. Why doesnt the integral wiki use the same GNU open source licence as wikipedia? If it did we could just copy over relevant articles from the wikipedia, and then develop them along integral lines. By the way, have you seen the Wisdom Wiki? Covers pretty much the same ground, but has longer entries. -M Alan Kazlev 07:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention!
Yes, I am following GURU article with interest. Yet reading all those controversial points makes one exasperating. Let all this cool down. I am thinking of making some additions here and there after due pause. Thanks for drawing my attention.
 * VMO 05:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not make edits in bad faith
You may consider my edits against in guru against NPOV but I sincerely believe that I make good edits. Why is it so difficult to accept different perspectives in the article on gurus? The Hindu view on gurus is just one of many possible. Andries 20:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I told you that I was done with this conversation. You believe that the article on gurus should be at least 50% criticisms of gurus. I believe that gurus are an integral part of Eastern religion and the article should discuss the concept as a part of Eastern religion. You are only interested in using the article to broadcast unsubstantiated allegations. I consider that writing in bad faith. You cannot be reasoned with. I am through wasting my time with you. --goethean 21:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Guru#proposal
Wow, you sound great! I'd be glad to help you put a POV header on Human, if you explain precisely how it discriminates against religion. Sam Spade 17:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hows this? Sam Spade 17:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Gonzales
Thank you &mdash; I aim to please. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Quantum reverts
Hi, please don't revert the categorization of Bohm interpretation. The category Category:quantum mechanics had an excess of 200 articles in it. I attemtped to solve the poor organization by moving approx 30 articles to category:quantum measurement. Please don't revert without discussion. Yes, I agree that category:interpretations of quantum mechanics may have been a better name for this category, in retrospect. linas 03:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Please check out Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein  |  Talk  23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Rick Ross
Have a look at Talk:Rick Ross. --Zappaz 20:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Esotericism WikiProject
hi Goethean,

I've been thinking what we need is an Esotericism WikiProject. The idea would be to work out things like templates, a uniform format, and so on, for esotericism wikipages. This could even include or be organised according to a classification of esoteric topics, if such can be agreed. Anyway if you and some of the other folks who post here are interested, then I'd love to get involved. But it's not something I want to do on my own (i'm spread too thinly as it is!)

M Alan Kazlev 10:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

POV Removal of Ramakrishna NPOV?
I notice that you have taken it upon yourself to remove the NPOV from the Ramakrishna article, in spite of the fact that you did NOT put it there (I know, I did...) and in spite of the fact that anonymous users continue to remove anything dealing with Dr. Jeffrey Kripal's scholarship...and you allowed their vandalism to go on un-checked. Well, I'm back, and watching the article again. I've reverted the vandalism, and if it continues I will slap a NPOV on the article once more. Your edits seem rather benign (though partisan... I detect a definite POV), but if it goes over the line, back into hagiography, well, you know what will happen. We are very capable of expanding the bibliographic footnotes in to whole paragraphs, into entire articles detailing the controversy. Do you want it to explode in that manner? Let's leave well enough alone and stay true to the Wikipedian ideal, no?  All the best,   Emyth 21:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Integral Template
Very good idea (Template:Integral). The only thing I would question is putting the states of consciousness here as a separate group rather than one of the ideas. There is no consensus on these categories. Even Wilber himself uses various names for these, so I think that while there is no question of the importance of the concept, the variablitiy in descriptions of them suggests they do not yet merit a primary place on the template. --Blainster 20:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good luck on the logo. That is definitely not my forte. I was just adding a little to the article on Arthur M. Young. Did you ever read his The Reflexive Universe? That was my first introduction to the field of consciousness studies. I think he should be on the template. --Blainster 20:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Young was a very integral thinker. He was educated at Princeton, interviewed by Jeffrey Mishlove in the latter's PBS television series "Thinking Allowed", and profiled in the book The Roots of Consciousness by Mishlove.  I see there is no article on Mishlove either.  He earned the only PhD in parapsychology from U C Berkeley. Add Young to your watchlist and I will expand the article.  Another candidate for the list would be Teilhard de Chardin.  --Blainster 21:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

20th century authors
Stephen King is in the list of 20th century writers. --Brunnock 13:18, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh! Well, I said that it was absurd, not that people didn't think it. --goethean ॐ  13:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polytheism
I largely agree with your removal, if only because it was distracting. That said, some religions which are often seen as polytheistic from the outside (Hinduism, many forms of buddhism, possibly even ancient greek mythology or native american beliefs) are actually speaking of a number of aspects of God, and/or of lesser entities, djinn or devas. I can see that was a bit difficult for me to present. An important example would be the many buddhist dieties. Sam Spade 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Entries for each of Wilber's Levels
Hi Goethean. I recently added a (still rather stubby) entry for the Triple transformation. Anyway I mention there two of Wilber's highest levels, which I give the wiki links as Causal (Wilber) and Ultimate (Wilber). I notice however that you have Subtle realm and Causal realm on your user page. So since you're doing most of the Wilber stuff, I'll leave it to you how to name the links and entries M Alan Kazlev 04:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Integral Wiki
The Integral Encyclopedia Wiki M Alan Kazlev 05:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * btw this would be a good forum for a non-physicalist version of Human, and a non-cynical version of Guru (haven't checked both pages lately so don't how these issues have been addressed. I've been transferring wikipages over, and will eventually be adjusting some away from a non-physicalist-bound perspective (e.g. the page on The Mother is very limited by its required physicalist slant on wikipedia, when i have time i'll combine this page with the older "sympathetic point of view" one to get a good balanced perspective) M Alan Kazlev 00:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harold Bloom
I may need to adopt a more ethereal approach, then? Thanks! Jeffrey Newman 08:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

integral wiki
I and other users have therefore initiated the The Integral Wiki, which, unlike Wikipedia, is equipped to truly implement neutral point of view.

Since you seem to have it all figured out over there, perhaps you should spend your time there too. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Conduct on talk:Intelligent design
I think FW deserves an apology for your conduct, specificly the inflammitory statements towards the end.

Also, as a note, your conduct, while better, looks suspiciously like baiting FW. I am willing to give you the benifit of the doubt, but I ask you go out of your way to avoid baiting him even by accident.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)


 * I went to look at that page to see what this was about, and I could not see anything Goethean had posted there. I thought okay maybe he had written something and forgotten to sign it, but i checked and he's not listed on the history screen either.  Perhaps you're referring to another talk page?   M Alan Kazlev 8 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)
 * , jump into archive 11.

Goethean, my attitude here is much like a school teacher or a parent. I don't care who started it, no one but you is responsible for what you say. I am not intrested in discussing FW's behavoir, I am intrested in the fact that you breached civility and that you should not have.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent Design
This seems to be the result of a script that left behind a fe anomalies. It's impossible to merge the history of this page with that I Talk:Intelligent design, and my inclination is to leave it where it is (it's of no obvious use, but leaving it at least preserves its history). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 8 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Category: Integral Theory
Here's a new category page i made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Integral_theory We can add this to all the Integral theory pages M Alan Kazlev 9 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

You asked 'Why are you removing the Integral theory template from every article?' --goethean ॐ 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * They are still there I am moving them to the references and links part of the articles where they fit best. References and links go at the rear of articles not at the head in all Wikipedia articles. Lumos3 23:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Untrue &mdash; as you undoubtedly know, the use of templates as panels of links is a common Wikipedia custom. 


 * Yes I do know this, and its not the use of a box of related links that I object to but its position at the head of these articles. There is clear guidance on this at Manual of Style. I have placed the boxes within these sections where they are most appropriate. A quick tour of wikipedia featured articles will show that this convention is universally adhered to. The only exception would be the Integral Theory article itself, where a box summarising key data would be appropriate. Lumos3 12:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Bangla
I dont know devnagari, but obviously can do the bangla part--ppm 20:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, but hindi is not bangla. I dont know hindi either. --ppm 20:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

List of purported cults
Hello Goethean. Please see the VfD on List of purported cults. I participated heavily in this article, but now I am siding with supporting deletion. After all, it is being used as a way to throw mud at religious groups that are not mainstream and thus inherently POV. Read and vote if you wish at Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2 and if you know of other editors that care for religious tolerance and freedoms and a WP that is devoid of bias against religions, please alert them as well so they can participate in generating consensus about the future of articles of this type. Thanks.--ZappaZ 04:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Cults
Thanks for your support on VfD. List of religious groups disliked by people who we like was especially fitting. More and more I'm getting the impression, that there is un undeclared WikiProject_Cults at work, which astonishingly consists of a strange alliance of followers and anti-cult-activists (mostly ex-followers), which have their terroritories split up and are enganged in a slow war of attrition, both sides preferring to not be disturbed by outsiders. --Pjacobi 17:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Integral theory4
Template:Integral theory4 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. &mdash;PrologFan {Talk} 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Something funny this way cometh
I'm not a native speaker of English. You are welcome to correct "funny stuff" :)  Subramanian talk 22:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

body-mind
My understanding of the Wikipedia principles are that varying interpretations of a subject are exactly what a Wiki is supposed to generate. My extentions to "Body-mind" you remove for not being "neutral". What do you understand by "neutral" ?? I spent another hour reentering in a compacter form which fully relates to the understanding of "Body-mind" in the world of alternative healing, and you simply delete this as well, this time with no further comment. Where do we go from here. Am I to open another new page "Bodymind" (one word) to pacify you, or will you mutilate this as well??

--Please comment, thank you. User:Osioni (Niall O'Siochain).

You do an awesome job
Thanks for fixing up my mistakes and clearing up some things so quickly. You rule! --Chadamir 16:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Guru-shishya tradition
Hi Goethean. Could you take a look at Guru-shishya tradition? See if you can assist with it. Thanks. (also, I never followed up with you about your request for a graphic for the Plato article.) ≈ jossi ≈ 22:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the sequel
The POV that was in Authentic Matthew before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ( ! | ? | * ) 20:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Lead should be comprehensive
Simply cutting 4/5 of it is not helping. Sociocultural evolution has a long, but acceptable lead. See FAC discussion for some lead comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC
Greetings. Over the past week or so I've had the misfortune of encountering another editor named FuelWagon who has been extremely uncivil and abusive in his tone towards myself and some other editors. He has attacked me personally several times, posted comments insinuating that I should "leave wikipedia," and posted a fraudulent 3RR warning against me after only two reverts. He seems to also linger around the Requests for Comments page and has twice now posted belligerent and disruptive personal attacks in response to RfC's I've posted. I decided to post an RfC on his behavior as the problem is continuing. I looked over his editing history to document other cases where he's breached civility and saw you were editing at the Intelligent Design article and appear to have experienced much of the same from him. The RfC is located here. Please take a moment to review it. Any input you may have would be welcome as well. Rangerdude 19:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Moral Development
Hey there. I was wondering, hoping actually, that you'd want to start shaping up and improving the Kohlberg's stages of moral development article with me. I've been side tracked for a while now with Category:Alcohol_abuse, AIDS and psychodynamic psychotherapy/psychotherapy. It's hard enough to find someone who can even fully understand Lawrence Kohlberg, and you seem to know a good amount. How about it, what do you say? :) .... JoeSmack (talk) 18:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The Mirabai Article
Hi Goethean! I have just looked at the Mirabai stub that you have created. A small comment! The expression "prayerful bhajan" sounds a bit odd since the hindi word Bhajan literally translates to "a song of prayer to god". Should the expression not be replaced with something like: "many prayerful songs" or "many bhajans (hymns)". Any thoughts ? Syiem 07:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Goethean! Changed. Syiem 03:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA comments on Talk: pages
Ideally only votes should go in the vote section, and all other comments in a comment section or on the Talk: page. There is some leeway in this, of course, but post after post in the vote section makes the page extremely difficult to work with for other editors wishing to vote. I left in three of your comments, so people could get the gist of your issues, and you get the last word as well. I'm sure those who want to continue the debate will follow the link. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bible and reincarnation
I've left a note on the anon's Talk page, and reverted his latest ramblings. I'll keep on eye on things, and if he continues, I'll have a stricter word with him. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives
Thanks for the alert; you guessed correctly... --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew
You have been named as one of the alledged "group" at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Ron. 14:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Goethean, first of all, I see you've had a visit from 'Ron' aka -Ril-. His involvement is 'not helpful'. However, I seem to have got into some sort of bizzare wrangle with Mel Etitis, over his protecting Mellisadobeer (or however you spell it). I wouldn't mind a second opinion, if you could take a look at the 'Authentic Mat' talk page. --Doc (?) 21:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've placed another poll to demonstrate a consensus once and for all. I've also reverted the article to a cleaned-up version. You might like to place a vote, and consider halping defend the reversion. I'm hoping we can settle this crap once and for all. --Doc (?) 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Integral Theory (philosophy)
Hello again, I had another question concerning integral theory, that I think should be explained in the article: what criteria are there for validating a mystical experience? I think this would go a long way in improving the article. L Hamm 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD on Saniel Bonder
Goethan, please vote on the VfD on Saniel Bonder Vote for Deletion on Saniel Bonder Saniel Bonder

Wikiproject for freedom of religion
Hi Goethean, it is about time we get a group of experienced editors together to fight the ongoing tendency by secular editors to impose an anti-religious bias in Wikipedia. I would want to start the WikiProject_Freedom_of_religion or in which we canvas WP article related to religion and put good work in NPOV'ng these articles. Would you be interested in partneringt with me and get it off the ground? --ZappaZ 02:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
For copyediting today !Incidentally I was close to someone who was a follower ( he was an anti-guru who berated followers) of Ganesh Baba ( as were Ram Dass et al), so  GB who could do with his page. Thats the link of interest awaiting, the cross-over.Famekeeper

Hi
You may be interested in Requests for comment/User name games. Exploding Boy 20:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Miracles
The other miracles I was told about were two.

One was of the especially troublesome naga sadhu  hanging out in the early sixties in Benares /Varanasi at the burning ghats. He got a reputation even with the police-who generally steered well clear. He specialised in eating the flesh from the bodies that had not been  completely cremated, causing quite a stir. One day an especial delegation of worthies went down to remonstrate with this naga, the chief amongst whom called forth at a careful distance to him the evil disrespect  of his ways. The naga just sqwawked with hysterical laughter  and, his mouth still containing  warm brains , heaved across the rest of the skull at the worthy. As it dropped at his feet, the  skull littered out  and around  loose gemstones  to tempt them. A nicer one was of a major puja  held by the tibetans - this one  was seen by about a dozen westerners -. All but two or so of the westerners were either held off at a distance, and ended upon rooves, but there were many lines of cross-legged  faithful there , marshalled by the monks. As the puja continued  monks  went down these lines and upon each faithful devotee's forehead placed a  sticky seed of sunflower. At the appropriate conclusion of the puja, which was concerning  the visualisation of the soul  as being  like a hoop , such that those who had true belief could  so hoop their souls into a ring , in readiness for the great hook of all-being to swing down and  lift their soul-hoops off into heaven , well , a cloud of blue butterflies  rose en masse , one from each seed  there placed.

The persom close to me was a follower of Shiva, as nagas are , but I never approved of that which he learnt from the witch mataji at thse ghats in Benares. It always seemed to me the perfect excuse for materialistic excess. She said - there is evil out there in the universe, so here she said , grabbing it, the sooner I gobble it all up out of the way , the better.

I have never seen before what I have seen here on WP. Famekeeper

Stripping the Gurus
I see what you mean August 26! His admission there has corroborated that he is a self-promotionalist. Nevertheless, I'm sure censorship isn't the answer. Although there is much rant in his writings, he has actually gathered a lot of material together. Until a better source is found for such material, I see benefit in using some of his knowledge in wikipedia, and setting up informative links. Matt Stan 01:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * his take on Aurobindo for example is rubbish. He condemns Wilber for attacking Bohm (fair enough, although i'd like to see the actual quotes), but then he does the same re out of context and unreliable quotes regarding Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's past incarnations etc (neither made the past life claims he attributes to them).  I found his chapter (of his book) on Da quite good (re the negative side of Da); but the one on Wilber seems to involve him pushing his own physicalist-scepticist agenda, which weakens the critique greatly.  His claim that the Wilber wiki page is hagiographic is nonsense, after all you have links to Frank Wisser's Reading Room and my own pages, both contain strong critiques on Ken.  I'm not saying everything in Stripping the Gurus is wrong; but certainly his take on things is very simplistic (i've recently been observing the pro- and anti-Sai Baba internet war, some of it even spilled over into the SB talkk pages!  imho both sides each have a valid point, but each alone only gives one side of the picture) M Alan Kazlev 03:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that Falk will come up with some reviews of his own work by third parties. Is he a one-man iconoclast, or are there others who support his rather abrasive anti-cult crusade? Is he perhaps just another guru setting himself up above all the rest? I want to be careful not to make wikipedia into a book review site in this context. But I think wikipedia should provide NPOV guidance. If someone finds Falk's stuff via wikipedia they will have had the chance to read that he operates by questioning the infallibility of these so-called gurus by looking at their own personal lives - much like a tabloid journalist. Buddhism, in particular, warns about false gurus. So let wikipedia provide information to allow people make their own minds up. The things that impress me about Falk are that he's clearly got a mission - a good one in my mind - and his citation of sources is very detailed. Although not all his links work, he provides plethora of material against which to check his sources. Matt Stan 10:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well compared to David Lane, Geoff Falk is small potatos! But yes, like you Matt I think it is good to have people criticising gurus and self-apointed gurus, but Falk doesnt do this very well.  His chapters are inconsistent in quality, and the one Ken Wilber (which Goethean correctly removed and i removed again when it was reposted) is badly written because he is more concerned to attack Wilber's ideas which offend his own strict physicalism, and it is all so preachy and biased, and it says nothing about Wilber as "guru" (in fact Wilber, unlike his friend Andrew Cohen, doesnt claim to be a guru).  While he does cite refernces, as you point out, his references are only those that agree with his position; e.g. James Randi.  Certainly his attack on Aurobindo shows lack of research (iirc he only cites two references, the second of which was based on the (unreliable) former one) & false info.  This makes me doubt the reliability of his other material.   Although he did i feel come up with an interesting personality diagnosis of what makes Ken tick on the emotional level, but only because Ken was so honest in his book Grace and Grit.  But I havent read G&G, so i don't know if Geoff Falk is taking things out of context or not. But i found some useful links in his page on Da Free John.  Because Wikipedia isnt a links archive, there's no point adding Falk unless he has something of interest to say.  I kept the link to his critique of Wilber on Bohm, but i'm not sure how reliable this info is, so maybe someone can confirm it.  Certainly re Wilber critic David Lane just does a much better job  (which is why i kept Falk's David Lane link on the Wilber page).


 * Maybe there could be a page on "Guru controversies" (there's no doubt in my mind that many gurus do abuse their position, i've even seen this in person) - if we have that then Falk's site can certainly go there in the links page (with Lane, Elias (ex-Da but he comes across to me as a very decent guy) and others) M Alan Kazlev 03:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Reversal of Change to ISKCON page
I would like the person that reversed the revisions in the previous version to explain why they did so, because the changes were NPOV not POV. In fact this version that it was changed to is POV. When both the versions are compared you will see that the changes refer to the following:

1) Prabhupada's death is physical-only and not spiritual. My version pointed this. Thus my version puts forward a view that the challenger did not like. It is a question of whether the vision should become limited or not. A limited vision is POV not NPOV.

2) The new version mentioned that the eleven chosen disciples were given the task of being instructing and NOT initiating gurus.

3) Other groups that follow the ritvik method of initiations were mentioned.

4) The website sources were linked.

5) The new version tells facts and new views as is thus a NPOV however the version we have now is POV because it ignores the new views and their websites sources.

6) The book changes to Prabhupada's books were mentioned and sources for the originals.

--Volunteer 00:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support on my adminship nomination. --ZappaZ 18:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Systematic > Systemic
The title should be WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion and  not  WikiProject Countering systematic bias in religion --ZappaZ  18:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Prabhupada, Hare Krishna Founder
Please understand through this example that in this context could sound weird but is needed so we can develop understanding - a heavily conditioned "meat-eater" will disagree with a "vegetarian" however if the "meat-eater" always puts their meat eating on Wikipedia and deletes "vegetarian" points then this would become POV. Every "meat-eater" input should also have the "vegetarian" points - then there will not be any bias. The "physical" and "spiritual" wording clarifies the meaning. Goethean has shown some flexibility and to implement this the changes should not be put only on a sentence but wherever there is mention of the "death" word, the word "physical" should be put. There are several mentions of the "death" word, including a heading. I hope Goethean understands this and will allow me to make the necessary changes. --Volunteer 19:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine-tuned universe
I'm cautioning you about making further unfounded ad hominem claims of original research. The material removed from the article was original research. Again, the anthropic principle is widely recognized as an argument for a created universe. That the fine tuning argument is a specifc argument within the antropic principle is not in question, nor is its status as an arugment that the universe was created. Your ad hominems and pov obstructionism on this article and others needs to cease. FeloniousMonk 17:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, your user sub-page User:Goethean/Examples_of_sophistry constitutes an ad hominem personal attack. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Goethan,

Just wanted to write to say thanks for your involvement in Wikipedia even in the face of acrimony. Keep up the good work :-).

Timurghlu

RFC on List of people who have said that they are gods
Could you comment on this RfC? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Surat Shabd Yoga article
Please update your views on the Surat Shabd Yoga article regarding NPOV. &mdash; RDF talk 20:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Richard Rose
Hi Goethean - I had posted this at the RR Talk page. Wish you could have seen it before you re-deleted the Category.

"I reverted the Category (deleted by Nat Krause) "Zen masters" because Richard Rose was certainly known as such. His published works and recorded lectures make ample references to his experience and expertise in this area. He studied with two Zen masters and said that of the schools of thought he studied, Zen was the most propitious. He wrote a book that included the "mechanics" of the ancient Chinese Zen practice known as Transmission. The name of the early esoteric group was the Pyramid Zen Society. Steve Harnish 19:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)" I do understand your point. There is ample material on the web that asserts Rose was a Zen master, even in the google link you provided RR +Zen etc at Google. Here is one such link Zen Master - Poet - Philosopher - Friend. Due to simple economics as well as the advent of the internet, very few people are interested in publishing hard-bound, library-quality books on who is and who isn't a Zen master. I would also direct you to the book by David Gold, After the Absolute link at OnZen.Com, which appears on the web as an EBook, but is also vailable in paper (bound) form. Note that the forward was provided by Joseph Chilton-Pearce, a highly popular author in his day. Here's a quick quote on the book, and there are ample descriptions in it, although Idon't have time to go through it and quote chapter and verse: "After the Absolute describes in fascinating detail the true story of attorney Dave Gold's life at the hands of Richard Rose, one of the most unlikely and unrelenting Zen masters you'll ever run across." Steve Harnish 21:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest: I wonder just who is qualified to make such a call. Please don't think I'm making the comparison, because I'm not, but there are hundreds of millions of people who don't believe Christ was the Messiah. Religion is very subjective.  But my criteria above are fairly objective, for a subjective experience - religion. Even mainstream Buddhists (such as Nat Krause has written on) consider Zen to be a spurious form of Buddhism, even though the Zen patriarchy is said to go back to Gatauma Buddha.  Would appreciate your re-considering your edit.  Thanks again. Steve Harnish 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From all the work you have done I can see you're no dilettante either at Wikipedia or in the field of esoteric studies. I know you suspected sockpuppets at first. For bona fides or if you wish to discuss anything offline, you can email me directly at sharnish@att.net. I'm from Miami, FL.  Steve Harnish 22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians
Hi Goethean, in case you have any interest in the above, I feel there are serious POV problems and inadequate sourcing in the contemporary section of the article, which I have deleted and moved to the talk page, but which is being restored uncorrected by User:FuelWagon and User:Liftarn. The problematic section is here and I've laid out what I see as the difficulties with it at Talk:Historical_persecution_by_Christians. If you have any time, your views would be appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Apology & Question
Sorry that I interjected a paragraph on the German Idealism/Schelling page. Aren't book titles supposed to be underlined, instead of being within quotation marks? Lestrade 16:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Urrutia
No thanks needed, you did the heavy lifting. It's on my watchlist now. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 18:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we delete Template:Spirituality2?
You created this with the edit summary of "testing" - I asssume this means it can be deleted? Please confirm, by adding { {db|By request of author, just a test.}} to the page. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Rajput
Although I understand that you are trying to mediate the situation on the Rajput article, but talking academically, it has gone to the flames.

I followed the discussion for some time, but I saw how one side was just arguing while one side was trying to cite evidence. Although, Shivraj was not the most elegant or articulate of debaters, however neither were the other boys, they never cited any references, not one.

In a South Asian Studies environment, the sentence “Rajputs are followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism.” This statement would never hold up since there is a lack of understanding what is a Jati, Caste and Varna system is.

I did my thesis on Rajputs for graduate studies at the University of Toronto, under the fmaous Harvard Professor for Indian and Hindu Studies, Dr. Joseph T. O’Connell, whom I am still in touch with today. However I als did my thesis on the Rajputs because I happen to be one. When I showed this discussion page to some of my colleagues who happen to be Paksitani and Muslim, they ridiculed it since even they clearly stated the Islam does not recognise Hindu castes. I don’t take offence to it, since it makes sense, these are two distint cultures.

It brings to mind the article : The Origins of Our Caste System in Vedic Times - Brahmins By Sudheer Birodkar:

“Caste is an institution which is truely Hindu (Indian) in character. So much so that even the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as, Hindu hereditary class, with members socially equal, united in religion, and usually following same trades, having no social intercourse with persons of other castes. The word caste itself is derived from the Portuguese word 'Casta' which means pure or chaste. In the Indian lexion we refer to caste by the words 'Varna' meaning colour and 'Jati' which is derived from the root syllable 'Ja' which means 'to be born'. But why does the caste system that prevails mainly among the Hindus, also exists in a subconscious manner amongst Muslims in India (Pakistan and Bangla Desh) as also among the Christians and Sikhs in India?”…….. http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/castevedic.html

Also: Islam And Caste Inequality Among Indian Muslims By Yoginder Sikand countercurrents.org 15 February, 200 http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand150204.htm

The claims and arguments presented in the discussion by the other side were not only weak, but at many times insulting. Also, never were references cited, no academic works etc. Honestly, this definition would not hold against any criticism in an academic environment or debate. I am simply being honest.

The Caste system was such that if a Rajput did something that was dishonourable, he could loose his status and become a Jat (Dhillon, B.S. (1994), `History and Study of the Jats', Beta Publishers Inc., Ottawa, Canada, I also happen to know this author while doing research at the University of Toronto for Indian studies). Thus Jats are defined into two terms, Asal Jats and non-Asal Jats. Non-asal Jats may be descended from Rajputs who lost their Jati. If a Rajput converted, he was considered an outcaste. References of Kings losing their Jati or Caste can even be seen in the Srimad Bhagvatam an example of this being during the story of Vishwamitra where Vishwamitra elevated himself to Brahm-Rishi from being a Raj-Rishi, also a certain king had become a Chandal due to a curse and therefore an outcaste, Vishwamitra preformed sacrifices to allow him to still enter heaven. Anyways, that is a bit off topic but a good example.

This group also made erroneous claims about Rajput history, even to the point that Wikipedia is the only source in the world that claims Jodhabai being a Janjua Rajput, when the rest of the world and history books all state that she was a princess of Jaipur, sister of Man Singh, and married to Akbar. The rulers of Jaipur trace their ancestry from Kush the son of Ram and are the head of the clan known as Kachawas. You can also see the references by the family themselves: http://www.royalfamilyjaipur.com/j_rul.htm or for a referemce to who Jodhabai was you can even see it here http://www.4to40.com/discoverindia/places/index.asp?article=discoverindia_places_jaipur

I find it incredible that the ones who yell the loudest get there way on Wikipedia. This article has only shown that and also that the claims for Encyclopedia standard and academic standard are not enforced and simply are lip service. I am honestly concerned. If this had been a site which was completely in control of the Pakistanis, then I could understand. However, if this site was in control of Arab or Iranian Muslims or a Secular Western Academic authors, then I would expect for some level of honesty and respect to another person’s culture.

The argument began because Muslims were not being recognized as Rajputs. Everyone knows that there are Muslims that may be descended from Rajputs since it took place in History, however to claim to be one and be descended from one are two very different things. Being a Rajput requires religious obligations and rites demanded by Hinduism. Islam believes in the equality of all men without caste or hierarchy.

The Phulkian states of the Sikh aristocracy also claim Rajput ancestry and in doing so have built numerous Hindu temples which can be seen today, not just in Punjab but extending all the way into Jahri Pani, Tehri Garhwal. However, even if the academic world recognizes who I am and my links with the Sikh families in question (since we are talking about blood ties and family) the other side simply would try to use the Sikhs as an example without any consideration in understanding the dynamics, history or culture of the Sikhs. They obviously never read the Pakistani publication,

"The Real Ranjit Singh" by a Pakistani historian, Syed Fakeer Waheeduddin, the great grandson of Fakeer Azizuddin, Maharaja's Foreign  Minister.

Neither have they read “A matter of Honour; An Account of the [British] Indian Army, Its officer and Men” by Philip Mason isbn:0333-41837-9

“Armies of the Raj” by Byron Farwell ISBN 0-393-30802-2

Even during recruitment, the British looked at the Muslim Rajputs as an inferior breed since they were seen as not having the same stock or fighting spirit as the Hindu or Sikh Rajputs. These are not my words, its in “A Matter of Honour…”isbn:0333418369

Although I understand that Shivraj became a bit too passionate during the argument, he made more sense than the others who argued against him. They were simply playing a very political and dirty game, it is sad they could not have been brought into a formal debate at a University.

And yet, simply screaming and being insulting while making erroneous claims like a couple of teenagers, they got their way and the Rajput article has been brought to the depths of being nothing more than a politically geared article at the expense of Academic freedom, integrity and knowledge.

I write to you because I know you will understand, however, I don’t expect anything good will come out from this article. Nor do I wish to pursue this matter since Wikipedia is obviously for those who can yell and scream without brining about a proper argument. This debate was so systematically twisted by ignoring the core basis of the disagreement. It is incredible that those who are not considered Rajputs even in the Academic world are given more of a voice than those who are.

Thank you for taking the time to read about my concern. I hope I have not wasted your time.

Dr. Chauhan

Gorkhali 09:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally respect Dr. Chauhan's views but would like to clear a few things. If we talk about that being a Rajput means that you believe in traditional Hindu Jati system (some are superior and some are inferior just by birth) then surely Islam does not have any place for this. I have talked with many Sikh and Hindu Rajputs/Jatts and they too say that they don't believe in the traditional Jati system and that all the people are equal. Do they also disqualify for being a Rajput? Islam, however, does not stop anyone from being proud of its lineage as long as it does not mean following any unislamic way. The way we Muslim Rajputs see the matter of being a Rajput is that it is the blood that runs in your veins and characteristics that you are told of. I accept that the Hindu Rajputs do have all the right to negate this idea but I think so do the Muslim Rajputs. Also about the argument of thinking of Hindu Rajputs as superior and Muslim Rajputs as inferior, I think most of the British army was composed of Rajputs of the aeras of Jehlum and Chakwal and Rawalpindi districts and the same proportion remains in the Pakistan Army today.

I admit that I have never read the book that Dr. Chauhan has mentioned but I will try to grab a hold of it. But similarly I think there are many books dating as far back as 1800 that categorize Muslim Rajputs as Rajputs and there was not dispute to that in those times. As far as Dr. Chauhan's friends are concerned, I don't know where they are from and what their educational background is but I know for sure that such people are in great minority. What I do know is that in both India and Pakistan, there has been a lot of distortion of information to support religious rhetoric and today it is hard to dig down the truth in that fog of mutual haterd.

خرم Khurram 15:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * When the article becomes unprotected, I can add a sentence to the article as follows:
 * Some see the Rajput varna as including followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Others dispute the claim that non-Hindus can not be Rajputs, seeing the Rajput identity as comprised primarily of participation in Hindu religious rites and the Hindu caste system rather than one of ethnic heritage.
 * How does that sound? &mdash; goethean ॐ  15:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree.

خرم Khurram 15:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

About your response
It is not as simple as you have responded Goethean. However, seeing that my words fell on deaf ears, so be it. At least I tried.

Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I must disagree here Gorkhali, on the contrary Gothean provided an alternative whilst still keeping neutral to the point. I must also clarify here that the point regarding Jodhabhai being a Janjua was also wrong too, hence why I removed this as I have since checked our family records and found no such record. I believe the article writer added this in possibly because there was a mild reference of her being the daughter of a famous Punjabi Raja called Raja Jodh who had a daughter called Jodha. But I clarified that these 2 Jodha's lived centuries apart (poor research with no proof hence I deleted this from the page). I am also compelled to answer your point regarding never heard of Janjua before. To the contrary, the whole world knows of the Pandava dynasty [.] which I am sure you have heard of. The Janjua are a branch of this dynasty. Off shoots/branches are very common of long standing dynasties. Even Guhilas had Ranawats, Bhattis had Sidhus etc. The Hindu Shahi who were stated by the Turk historians (Ferishta I believe)  '...the greatest of all the Rai's of Hind... ' the Janjua are descendants of this very dynasty and I have the family records (authentic Shajra family tree) to prove this. The father of the 1st Muslim Janjua, Raja Dhrupet was the ruler of Mathura before being expelled and exiled by Kutub din Aibak's army. There is a reference to this by all Bali and Bhimwal historians. So I find his research quite surprising considering after reading 60 books he hasn't heard of us at all.
 * I dispute the notion of the Jati (as a justification) because nowhere in Hinduism's texts is the word Rajput mentioned, only Kshatriya is. Rajputs assume this position. The fact that today some farmers (i.e. Shudra by Jati definition) are Rajputs also negates this Rajput = Kshatriya theory. Perjaps you can shed light on why there is no reference to the word Rajput before the 6th century? Most of the books written about Rajputs are based on Rajasthani Rajput Hindu Clans. If you were to look at any Punjabi history books, Punjabi tribes Janjua Rajputs will undoubtedly be mentioned. They settled there after setting up their own states of Malot, Kahuta and Makhiala.

Gothean, your help and on going efforts to resolve the dispute on this page is worth a medal if only I knew how to load one up! Thank for all your work and please continue the excellent work. --Raja 18:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Goethean, also regarding this phrase in the Rajput history page "Significant Muslim invasions were then not attempted until the eleventh century, largely due to the formidable reputation of the Rajput clans." I think the main reason was that Caliphate was not interested in the expansion of its Empire in India (logistics of any such campaign were a formidable hinderance). We also see that during that same time Muslims had their rule in Sindh and Multan and it was un-interrupted. Also we see that as soon as the Central Asian forces started to come to India, they almost always succeeded sooner or later as all the previous central asian raiders had. So I do not think that Rajput reputation had anything to do with it. It was a simple military question of logistics and the only accessible path was from central asia and as soon as that was secured we see the incusrions hapenning inside India. Had it been the Rajput reputation then Mahmud could not have penetrated as deep as Somnath was inside India and in the den of Rajputs. Rajputs were great soldiers but not great Generals and this was well known to all their adversaries. That is why that we see that even when they were in great numbers, they were unable to control their armies effectively (mainly because of distrust among the participants and different clans having different types of training etc.) to form a cohessive war machine. This is also why we don't see any incursion done by the Rajput forces into the outer lands as is the case with Mongols, Mughals, Ghaznavides, Ghoris, Romans, Greeks etc. and hence there was no reason for outer forces to fear them for any retaliation from them in form of counter strike.

خرم Khurram 17:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Goethean,

Actually there is no record in history that shows that invasion of India was ever in the plans of any Caliphate. The only incident that we find of is when Muhammad Bin Qasim entered Sindh and that too was in response to an incident and not for invasive desires. I could have cited the sources had I made that claim. I agree that no Muslim invasions were done after that but I think attributing it to the "Rajput" might is fiction since we don't find this evidence in any history book. Muhammad Bin Qasim was also called back because of political reasons not for military reasons. All that I can provide you with is the evidence that shows that the claim made was not true but qouting a citation is not possible since there is no mention of any such desire and hence any such fear by the Caliphate or the Muslim Armies.

خرم Khurram 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I just add a point here, wouldn't Shiv actually make the citation to prove that in any Islamic empire texts that it was the Rajput might that desisted any further invasions and not the other way around? Delhi Sultanates were already established amongst others in the regions mentioned above, so Muslim rulers were already there. You are in a better position to correct me here Gothean. I might be completely wrong here. Please advise. BTW I am unaware of your Religious background other than what is written on your page and your icon, but either way Happy Diwali my friend. :)   --Raja 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

And a belated one from me as well. Happy Diwali :)

خرم Khurram 15:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Schelling
I am honored by your invitation to collaborate with you on the Schelling article, which I have not yet even read but will do at your suggestion. However, I cannot do so in the near future because a) I don't really consider myself competent about Schelling and would have to really dig into him, b) I feel that there's quite a bit to do in articles I'm already involved in, and ) my non-WP professional work is quite demanding right now. However this may change, and in any case I promise to look at any work you do on it.  In fact, I'll go put it on my watchlist now.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the Schelling article and now understand your reaction entirely! Speaking of POV!  I supposed one short-term strategy would be just to  delete all of the editorializing and leave the remainder.  By the way, many years ago I took a course on German Idealism with Paul Tillich, and he interpreted Schelling, in his later philosophy, as the true founder of existential philosophy and precursor of Heidegger.  Habermas, by the way, wrote his dissertation about Schelling and has an interesting essay about him in one of his essay anthologies. Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Hindu rajputs
Would you have any major objections to me closing this early, to put the farce to an end? I don't think anyone's liely to argue that this isn't a farce, just make the same essay-length ad-hom attacks and argue that a POV fork is right in this case because their POV is right. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. Speedy away.


 * What needs to happen eventually is that knowledgable adults need to take an interest in the Rajput page. I don't like continual flamewar on talk pages. &mdash; goethean ॐ 17:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind, I try to keep conversations in one place, per my talkheader.
 * I'm gonna close it now. You're more man than I am to put up with all this, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious Pluralism
Hi Goethean,

thank you for your comment on talk:Religious Pluralism; I have changed my note on the talk page to clarify my intention: I do not want to merge all these articles in one. Still, I think, they should be linked better, and there has some improvement to be done on all of them. Somehow, it seems to me that all the articles I have come across in that subject area are either too short or badly written or biased, and somehow I feel I could do something to change that, yet certainly not on my own. Reworking the articles of the (Religious) pluralism domain is certainly an enormous task. So I would be glad if you would like to contribute with your expert knowledge, for example in checking sections of the article for their religious neutrality.

Moreover, since I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia, I would like to ask you for some advice:
 * Is there any clever way to find contributors for such a huge project? (I thought of opening a Wikiproject) How can you make people know there's a lot of interesting work for them out there to do?
 * Is there any way - beside Article Improvement Drive, for which I've nominated the page - you're invited to vote as well - to propose that a greater priority should be given within Wikipedia to this kind of questions (I heard that there's a list of 1000 most important subjects, that kind of thing)
 * Is there a time-honoured way of managing a project of restructuring? (This question is of course very general and vague; but just to show you that I don't know how this should be done)
 * Do you think the new outline I proposed for Religious Pluralism is sound?
 * Do you think the page should be renamed to Religious Diversity - A recent edit that was done on the Religious Pluralism page made me think about that - see Talk:Religious Pluralism.

Thank you in advance for your attention. --Robin.rueth 21:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual practices
Since you were the one who added haiku to the template: Haiku is not in the List of spirituality-related topics, nor is it an integral part of Zen Buddhism. Although a number of famous haiku poets were zen monks, most zen monks are not haiku poets, and many haiku poets are not zen monks. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I plan to remove the link to haiku from the template, and remove the template from the haiku article. Blank Verse  08:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Gothean
Thanks for that. I've just checked the page again and Shiv's decided to get some more friends on the go there, which you've already done something about I can see. What's it going to take to resolve this dispute, or atleast stop this flame war that Shiv's trying to entice us back into again? --Raja 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

One thing Goethean, aren't you getting tired of all this? The article has again be reverted back :(

خرم Khurram 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Yogi
I rolled back your edit of Yogi, which I felt would cause a lot of content to go missing.

The article itself already contains a link to the disambiguation page, and in most cases, the accepted practise on Wikipedia is to disambiguate directly on the page, or else have one article at the main location, with a disambiguation page to centralise alternative meanings. Rob Church Talk 16:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair do's, I'll take you at your word. Incidentally, I'm the administrator acting on your latest report of a 3RR violation. Small world, isn't it? Take care, Rob Church Talk 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal on Template:Suicide
I have a possible solution to the dispute on Template talk:Suicide. When you have time, take a look at it and note your possible assent or not in the appropriate section. Thanks! — Phil Welch 22:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Spirituality portal
Hi Goethean,

I am willing to help out with a "Spirituality" portal. I expect it won't be without controversy, but that's life. &mdash; RichardRDFtalk 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I entered some basics to get the ball rolling. I look forward to your participation in the Spirituality WikiProject and reading your contributions to the Spirituality portal. :-)   &mdash; RichardRDFtalk 00:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response on Brahman
Dear Goethean, I am actually tired of this word been misunderstood not only by foreigners but also Indians. First of all Sanskrit is a language that regards sound itself to be divine, and is very scrouplous about pronunciation. Short ə and long ā themselves are sufficient to make a hell lot of difference, and foreigners are not able to differentiate due to romanization. So I felt the disambiguation, along with devanagari script and pronunciation were essential. Also I added more details on relation of Brahman and God, ie. Ishvara, a page which I have again heavily edited. As for myself, I am an Indian, a Hindu, sufficient knower of Sanskrit and linguistics, and currently undertaking an elective course in Indian Philosophy. Cygnus_hansa 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
If you can't beat 'em join 'em.--Gandalf2000 01:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

About Advait vedanta
My God, your article solely tries to prove that Sankara was preaching Buddhism in the garb of Hinduism which is not true. Later Buddhists, without any relations to the original teachings of the Vedas, may have come a bit close to Advaita, but they were antagonists. Anyways, I have changed a few lines, only altered them "cleverly" without rubbing out your stuff, so that they confirm to neutral point of view. I have also added a new section on the basic concepts of Advaitism. I have a very nice book on Indian philosophy from where I have taken up the matter, but it is in Hindi. Rest of your stuff was impressive. Cygnus_hansa 13:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC) 203.199.81.148 13:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

wendell berry
i think those articles can be found in his new book....

Your editing on Talk:Rajput
You were reported for a violation of the three-revert rule on Talk:Rajput. The cited edits were:


 * One
 * Two
 * Three
 * Four

The text of my response was as follows:


 * The page in question is a talk page, and Goethean appears to be removing some comments from the page. Whilst I do not feel the comments were particularly relevant to the editing of the article, I also don't find it appropriate to continuously erase them, either. These users have previously engaged in an edit war, and at least one of them has been blocked for a 3RR violation beforehand. Therefore, I am warning Goethean and, should the behaviour continue, will consider a short-to-medium-length block. Rob Church Talk 10:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Should users leave comments on the talk page of an article, please do not remove them. Unlike your own talk page, you are not entitled to remove comments from pages in the generic Talk namespace without archiving them. Rob Church Talk 10:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution details various procedures which might be useful in this case. Rob Church Talk 15:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Spirituality
Template:Spirituality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. &mdash; RichardRDFtalk 17:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ramakrishna
Hi Goethean. Can you take a look at Ramakrishna? It seems that the article needs a lot of work to make it encyclopedic. I added a new subsection on "Initiation" and provided sources, but the rest of material in the biography section lacks attribution and sources. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Would it be at all possible for you to weigh in at Talk:Table of nations. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother you about this, but the sudden appearance of 3 editors on the talk page despite nothing happening for a week makes me suspicious that something underhand is going on. (I'm asking since you are a founder of the "freedom of religion" anti-bias project). --User talk:FDuffy 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I moved the page. The article clearly covered at that point far more than the 3 Sons of Noah, in fact covering the whole of that biblical section. The academic title of the section is "Table of Nations", has been for centuries, and is referred to by that title in every major professional encyclopedia which covers the subject at all, including the extremely well respected Jewish Encyclopedia. In addition, no-one had edited the talk page for almost one whole year. Hence I chose to change it to "Table of Nations". --User talk:FDuffy 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you that "sons of Noah" is more general, the article was not - This is what it looked like before I got involved - it was almost entirely dedicated to discussing nationhoods, and racial classification, rather than "descendants of Noah" in general. Hence why I feel I am justified in moving it to "Table of Nations" - the academic title of this issue. --User talk:FDuffy 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (on that particular old version, I would also draw your attention to the sentence "Ham is believed to be the father of the Negroid peoples, because the lands of Cush and Mizraim (Egypt) are in Africa. The Islamic Yoruba of West Africa, among others, still trace their lineage through Ham"., and point out that Hamitic theor

ies have been very strongly discredited and are now viewed as racist - i.e. the phrasing of that version wasn't exactly NPOV) --User talk:FDuffy 22:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The first of those two paragraphs I added to your talk as the main one for my case. I pointed out that sentence to demonstrate that the article was very one sided. It is my case that the choice of title was very one sided; the majority of academics, as well as references, refer to the topic as the Table of Nations not the Sons of Noah. --User talk:FDuffy 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean like Generations of Adam which discusses a quite different subject? --User talk:FDuffy 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For what reason? Academics refer to it as Table of Nations, so do all the major encyclopedias; the only people as far as I can see to call it Sons of Noah are wikipedians. Isn't there a policy somewhere about avoiding original research and neologisms? --User talk:FDuffy 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Advaita Vedanta Ajativada
An article - Advaita Vedanta Ajativada - has been proposed for deletion which is has a similar title to a better one which you have contributed to. Please check it out and help decide whether it should be deleted.--File Éireann 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please avoid personal attacks on the ID poll. Some of your comments are, at best, borderline. Thank you. Guettarda 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the interests of clarification, here is what User:Guettarda considers personal attacks. Different standards may apply to those who submit to the dominant ideology. &mdash; goethean ॐ 17:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice misdirection - I was talking about your insults aimed at FM which werre deleted. Guettarda 17:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My impression is that I just linked to all of my edits to that page. If you know of another, please provide a link. Even deleted edits should be in the page history. (Unless I'm being Stalinesquely written out of history, something that wouldn't surprise me) &mdash; goethean ॐ 17:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re Allan Combs
Let me know if I can help. -Allan Combs

Also, you did a nice job with the Wilber page. I edited the section on the Wlber-Combs lattice a bit. Let me know if I can be of help with that too.

Benjamin Urrutia
Hello Mikkalai. Why did you do this? &mdash; goethean ॐ 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These are external links to book reviews at obscure websites (books not written by this guy). They can hardly be counted as important works. Not to say they are linkspam: no encyclopedic info in them. mikka (t) 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First, including the external links was part of the peace that I brokered with the editor who wanted to include lots of books edited by Urrutia in the biblio. If you objected to the deal, you could have spoken up then. Second, I don't understand why links to articles by the subject of the article are inappropriate. They're links, not linkspam. If you are going to insist on this change, I would appreciate a link to an applicable Wikipedia policy. &mdash; goethean ॐ 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * templates substituted by a bot as per Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)