Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 12

August 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2009

Seripa (Dragon Ball Z)
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC) This isn't covered within the list. TTN (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → List of Dragon Ball characters (links to redirect)

Princess snake
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC) This isn't covered within the list. TTN (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → List of Dragon Ball characters (links to redirect)

Hells Flash
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC) This is not covered within the article. TTN (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → List of Dragon Ball characters (links to redirect)

♥♪!
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC) There is no reason for anyone to use this as a search term. TTN (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (links to redirect)
 * Delete per nom. The Weak Willed 18:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Kajidoh Corps
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC) There is no reason for anyone to use this as a search term. TTN (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (links to redirect)

Kajidoh
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) There is no reason for anyone to use this as a search term. TTN (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (links to redirect)

Brioni
The result of the discussion was moot. The page is now a disambiguation. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (links to redirect)

Prior to my no doubt wrongly done edit to the redirect page, it was not possible to access the article on the fashion house Brioni. Hopefully, someone with more skill than I have (it won't take much) will be able to fix this.Bobzchemist (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I have turned the page into a disambiguation page, which is what it should be. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Thalassemyidae
The result of the discussion was keep, and expand when possible. A family should indeed have an article - but until a person with the knowledge to produce one comes along, a redirect to a relevant target is the next best thing. ~ mazca  talk 10:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC) A wrong redirect, because Thalassemyidae is a Family which should be an independent article. KeepOpera (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Sea turtle (links to redirect)
 * If you are interested in createing a article that can be done without deleting the redirect.--76.66.183.79 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really want to do that, but I'm not able to... I know little on paleontology. --KeepOpera (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep should remain as a redirect until it is expanded. I have added the R with possibilities tag. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Agni_Yoga
The result of the discussion was wrong venue. Article restored and taken to WP:AFD. Please discuss at Articles_for_deletion/Agni_Yoga. ~ mazca  talk 10:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC) A perfectly valid article on the subject placed by the Agni Yoga Society was redirected to a partisan and poorly written article without our knowledge. Cannot restore previous revision because only the redirect version appears on the History page. Mmratner (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Living_Ethics (links to redirect)
 * Comment- if you check the page logs it was moved to Living Ethics. Did you take the page move up with Deodarvostok (the editor that performed the move)? I'm not exactly sure what the problem with the current redirect is.  [ mad   pierrot  ]  05:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is possible, I would like to see the article before the page move.  [ mad   pierrot  ]  17:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page history of the current article and checking the history from before the move this appears to be the last revision of the old verson before it it was revamped and moved to the new title []. I have no clue if one is better than the other though.--76.66.183.79 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the Agni Yoga article as separate and distinct from the Living Ethics page (replaced the redirect). Mmratner (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is translated with the help http://www.translate.ru

Article Agni Yoga as it stands does not correspond to a number of rules of Wikipedia:
 * No original research In article few any reference to a secondary source. Instead the primary source that is inadmissible is used only.
 * Reliable sources In article there is no reference to the authoritative source confirming the written.

Therefore new article with observance of all rules of Wikipedia has been written. At article writing secondary authoritative scientific sources were used:


 * Gindilis L.M., Frolov V.V. Philosophy of Living Ethics and its interpreters. Roerich’s movement in Russia//Journal «Problems of philosophy» N 3, 2001.


 * Gindilis L.M. - the academician of Academy of astronautics of a name of Tsiolkovsky. Frolov V.V. - the Doctor of Philosophy, the professor. Their article is published in authoritative scientific magazine «Problems of philosophy» which is published under the direction of the Russian Academy of Sciences.


 * Also in article works in are used L. V.Shaposhnikovoj. Shaposhnikova L. V. — General director of Museum by name of Nicolas Roerich, Honored Art Worker of RF, Academician of Russian Academy of Cosmonautics named after K. Tsiolkovsky, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russian Ecological Academy and Editor-in-chief of the journal «Culture and time».

Besides, in article Living Ethics such important sections as "Scientific conferences", "Scientific publications, dedicated to study of Living Ethics", "International award named after H.I contain. Roerich", "Scientists and cultural work concerning the Living Ethics Teaching". Article Living Ethics is much more exact than article Agni Yoga reflects substantive provisions teaching Living Ethics, is fuller, scientific, encyclopedic, in it Nikolay Roerich's pictures are used. Therefore, according to a rule Content forking, on page Agni Yoga it is necessary to put redirect on article Living Ethics.

--Deodarvostok (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked for some input from WikiProject Philosophy here. I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject, and hopefully a third opinion from an expert will help us out a little.  Unfortunately, I work during the day, so I won't be able to give the articles a proper read until tonight.  [  mad   pierrot  ]  14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Asiaj I wrote most of the article on Agni Yoga that was entirely eliminated—as opposed to improved—by Deodarvostok, who also gave the article a new title. I am proposing that the previous article (prior to Deodarvostok’s edits of this month) be reinstated in toto under the title Agni Yoga. Before I give the reasons for this, I’d like to state that contrary to what Mmratner wrote above, my part of the article was not placed by the Agni Yoga Society, but written entirely on my own without the approval, knowledge, or collaboration of the AYS.

1) Deodarvostok’s article is basically a (poor) translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on “Living Ethics.” It was written in Russian for Russians who may have access to the Russian sources cited and may be impressed by a quote from a Russian Cabinet minister. The previous article was written for readers of English.

2) Deodarvostok’s article begins with an assertion that “Living Ethics” is more “widespread” (i.e., generally used) than its equivalent, “Agni Yoga.” I don’t know what the basis for that statement is, seeing that the 17 books of the Teaching have hundreds of references to “Agni Yoga” and only three or four dozen to “Living Ethics.” At least outside of Russia, the teaching is more widely known as Agni Yoga.

3) Deodarvostok states that he or she is writing about a teaching “based on the books written by Helena and Nicholas Roerich in the first half of the XX century, in cooperation with the Teachers of the East.” On the other hand, the material I wrote is almost entirely about the content of the Agni Yoga books themselves, and not the organizations, developments, declarations, and conferences that may be connected with them. This is a key difference between the two articles.

4) Deodarvostok’s article—and the Russian original—clearly violate Wikipedia guidelines by being a soapbox for its version of “Living Ethics,” for the Roerichs, and especially for the International Centre of the Roerichs in Moscow. The section on “Scientific conferences,” which Deodarvostok considers “Important,” is almost nothing but a list of organizations and speakers at conferences the Centre organized. On the other hand, Deodarvostok threw away everything that I wrote about the history of Agni Yoga, its relationship with other Yogas and theosophical teachings, and what it has to say about itself. Isn’t that material much more “important” to a scholar or general reader who wants to find out about Agni Yoga than a list of people who spoke at some conference or a list of articles only Russian readers can access?

5) It’s true that what I wrote relies heavily, if not exclusively, on primary sources, for the simple reason that there are very few secondary sources in English, even in theosophical journals. Deodarvostok also has several quotations from the letters of Helena Roerich, a primary source. And that makes sense, given that scholarship on Agni Yoga is still in its infancy, especially outside of Russia.

6) In contrast to Deodarvostok, I took care to avoid a partisan viewpoint, as I was well aware that over the years there has been acrimony between the various organizations and teachers associated with Agni Yoga and the Roerichs. I did make mention of the Moscow Centre, whose importance I recognize, and cited At the Threshold of the New World, a book whose introduction was written by Mme. Shaposhnikova. This is only natural. But an article about Agni Yoga should focus on Agni Yoga.

To sum up, the article Deodarstovok posted and the one I wrote are very different; the latter, though imperfect, is much more appropriate because it addresses the non-Russian reader, provides sources he or she can access, and gives an objective presentation of the salient facts concerning Agni Yoga. The old article should be reinstated under the title “Agni Yoga.” For the reasons stated, I think Deodarstovok’s article is highly flawed and should, if possible, be replaced by a better article on the Moscow Centre and its work.


 * ''It is translated with the help «http://translate.google.ru»

The article Agni Yoga was written with violations, indeed:


 * No original research
 * Reliable sources

This article was the personal opinion of Agni Yoga Society.

The article Living Ethics has a good scientific level, since there are many references to scientific work, including - of the scientists from the International Center of the Roerichs.

The International Center of the Roerichs holds annual international scientific conference. Scientists from all over the world participate in these conferences.

Unfortunately, Agni Yoga Society is not involved in international scientific conferences, is located in the side of science.

I suggest to leave the article Living Ethics.

Uncle Y (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Asiaj The above "reply" by Deodarvostok ignores my initial statement that the Agni Yoga Society has had no role in the writing of my part of the article; I cannot speak for the other contributors, but nor can Deodarvostok. Deodarvostok reiterates criticisms of the previous article's sources without responding to the numerous points I made. But he (or she or they) does go out of his way to criticize the Agni Yoga Society. This criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the Wikipedia article. His gratuitous criticism of the AYS as well as his baseless attempt to link what I wrote to the AYS show a strong partisan spirit and motivation that are heavily reflected in his article. (Mad pierrot, the Moscow Centre and AYS have been at odds a long time.) But I am not going to assert that he wrote his article on behalf of the Moscow Centre, as I'm not in the business of asserting what I have no evidence to prove.

BTW, if you look at the editing history you can see that in January of this year I removed a reference to the Agni Yoga Society that Malcolm Schosha added to the initial paragraph, a fact that shows I'm not in any way trying to promote the AYS--I'm not. (Malcolm restored it, based on AYS's own website, but I still disagree with the idea that the AYS was founded in 1920.) The three references to the AYS in the material I wrote are factual and neutral. The assertion that what I wrote is "the personal opinion of Agni Yoga Society" is groundless and absurd. The article is objective and informative, and in spite of certain unavoidable limitations, which I've acknowledged, it ought to be reinstated in toto under the title "Agni Yoga." Perhaps the "Living Ethics" article could remain, in spite of its many shortcomings, but frankly it doesn't give a very positive image of the Moscow Centre. One would think an international center of its standing could do much better than that.

As far as I can understand forced redirect of Agni Yoga page violates Deletion policy. Also use of such method puts Living Ethics in category of POV fork; see Content forking.

Is there any problem about improving both articles? Is it possible to have both improved articles as different sections of single Agni Yoga entry?

-- Tabibito8 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding when I first wrote here that the Agni Yoga Society had been involved in writing of the original article. Since then I have clarified the issue both with the author of the article and with a senior member of the Society, who both corrected me and pointed out that the article was written independently. Hence I retract that portion of my original statement and apologize for any confusion it might have caused.

Mmratner (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

-- Tabibito8 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it possible to work in more collaborative way? Instead of using redirects, let authors of Living Ethics article add link to it from Agni Yoga article. Next, they can enter into discussion with author of Agni Yoga article and point out specific portions of the article which need improvement.

Thinking things over, everything Deodarvostok has done and written smells of an agenda. The message amounts to: "The sourcing flaws in the 'Agni Yoga' article mean that we can virtually delete the entire article and replace it with one that is poorly written and publicizes the International Centre for the Roerichs in Moscow. Anyone who gets in our way must be a tool of the Centre's arch-enemy, the Agni Yoga Society." The whole approach lacks scruples and sincerity, not to mention talent. I again propose that the former article be reinstated in toto and that Deodarvostok be blocked from editing it. This is reasonable considering that he (or she/they) deleted the entire article and changed the name without consultation, and has been resistant to responding in a coherent way in this forum. I am willing to work on the Agni Yoga article more, citing and (when necessary) translating reliable secondary Russian sources, but that will take some time, as I'm working alone--and not just working on Wikipedia. But as this is my first Wikipedia discussion, I'm not sure how things work and if writing in this forum will have any impact. --Asiaj (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Close this Rfd, restore article, and take to AfD instead. This has been the center of an edit war, to the point of whether or not Agni Yoga merits a standalone article under Wikipedia policy. WP:RfD is not the appropriate venue for this: WP:AfD is. As it stands the rfd tag is long gone from the redirect/article in question, and calling this matter moot doesn't settle any issues. I urge an admin to close this discussion here and move it over to the proper venue(s). B.Wind (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)