User talk:Librarian2/Archive01 Oct 2007

Kukishin Ryu
Hello, I have seen that you are very good at finding references and data for citations. Please give a look at Kukishin Ryu, can you help in the missing ISBNs ? Thank you Heltzen◩ 09:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You Betcha!!
No problem. Many, many kudos and thanks for your help. Outstanding academia and editing is never appreciated enough. Mekugi 13:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Radionics
Hi,

An interesting comment on the definition of radionics, thank you! I didn't think an article like that would lead to thinking about the philosophy of topic descriptions, but there you go :) You asked why the definition of Radionics in the intro isn't the same as that in the source cited.

The reason they differ is not accidental. I think it's a combination of 3 things:
 * 1) The article definition is not just the voice of its proponents, it has to be neutral. Thus to take an extreme example, we wouldn't start an article on a deluded person by saying "X was Jesus Christ", even if that was their own claim, and the claim of their cult. We might say "X believes..." or "According to the Church, X is...." but the article intro itself always has to be a balanced description.
 * 2) The article intro description is, in fact, a good neutral description of Radionics, that fits both science and its proponents views.
 * 3) That a matter is cited to a source does not mean its a direct quote from that source. It means the facts stated can be verified via that source.

According to the article on the Radionics website, Radionics is "Radionics is a method of sending precisely defined healing energy to people, animals or plants, no matter where they are in the world". The problem is, that according to scientific viewpoints, it isn't. The scientific viewpoint (as yet unsourced I notice) is broadly, "Radionics does nothing, since there isn't any evidence of such healing energy, nor evidence if it existed which is unproven that it can be sent this way." So the introduction can't just quote the article. It could quote it, if it also quoted other views, but that robs the introduction of its place as a short summary of the subject.

Instead, the intro words it this way: "Radionics is a body of ideas and practice concerning the concept of subtle energy and its transmission from one person to another (or any living being, including agriculture and horticulture) for healing purposes."

This represents it accurately, and the facts in it can be verified from the source cited. It neither says it's true or untrue, nor does it push a given viewpoint over another:


 * It's a subject that concerns the idea of subtle energies.
 * It's a set of ideas and methods and techniques, as opposed to (say) a scientific subject.
 * It concerns the transmission of these energies for healing purposes.
 * Its subjects for healing are people and all living beings, including agriculture and horticulture.

All of these sum up radionics to a lay-person; all can be verified from that page.

Hope this explains why it's worded as it is,

Thanks for asking, it made me think how to explain it!

FT2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved the discussion we're having to Talk:Radionics, and answered your comment there. Thanks! FT2 (Talk 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Little item for you...
Bugei Ryuha Daijiten article. Several editions. Got any ISBN for any of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekugi (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

KIS Category
Lol it was I who suggested the member category, because I consider myself a member of the project, but I don't fall into the only category there is, someone who uses the labels. Thus, there's no way for me to identify myself as a contributor to the project, that's the only reason I suggested it. If you don't like the idea, then that's fine. Ariel ♥ Gold 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
You recently commented on Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the finding of the ISBN for the bugei Ryuha Daijitenarticle. Outstanding as always!

Mekugi 10:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! Thanks for your note. I completely understand about being too busy in real life - I'm in exactly the same situation at the moment! Best, Jakew 10:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

KIS userbox
Thank you so much! I will go add it. Love, Ne ra n e i   (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)