User talk:Krsont/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Krsont/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Scientology series template discussion

without discussion, Xenu

Hello. You added Xenu to the Scientology Template. You did it without discussion and on a bet. Your bet is stated: "even if it's apparently not important to Scientologists themselves, I'm willing to bet it will be to those interested in Scientology". I have 3 points I wish to raise with you. First, I wish to assure you of the importance of Xenu to "Scientologoists" even though I am but a single scientologist. Zero. it has zero importantence. Not only is it unimportant to me, but the Church of Scientology considers it so unimportant that they have never commented on it. Further, I was active in Scientology for 20 years and did a great many courses, purchased books, was personal friends with staff members in missions, Class V and Class VIII orgs and, to a degree, on speaking terms with persons on staff in Advanced Orgs (specifically AOLA). Zero. not a word of any of the Xenu document was ever mentioned and I did not learn of that until I got on line chatting with people who apparently hate and hope to destroy Scientology. Zero. It is not important to Scientologists. Second, You made a bet that it would be important to other people who read Wikipedia, who are interested in Scientology not from the point of view of learning what Scientology is, but in learning things which are uncomplimentary to Scintology. Xenu (www.xenu.net) (www.clamback.org) is about as uncomplimentary as you can get before they lock you up for having a big mouth. Actually, clambake may even get locked up for having too big a mouth, heh. But whatever those websites risk, I hope you won't bring the legal hassle to wikipedia. Thirdly, you presented the Xenu in the wrong place in the template. "Scientology Studies" are what? Well, they are things which Scientologists study. Things like "ARC", "MEST" and "Tone Scale", if you follow. Educational things which make it just a little easier to understand one's fellow man. Some of that is specialized vocabularly, I understand it can be a little difficult. But "Xenu" is not a Scientology educational subject. If you wished to include it (based on your bet) the place to do it would be in the "Controversy" section. Make sense to you? have a good one Terryeo 12:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right - "scientology studies" should be renamed "scientology beliefs", seeing as that's where the link in the title goes anyway, and seeing that it is a religion and not a field of science. As for all that other stuff, I'll redefine what i meant by "bet": I meant that, as someone who is myself NOT a Scientologist, but is interested in Scientology, I find the subject of Xenu interesting. Especially when Scientologists themselves seem to act so defensively about it, to the point of denying it's existence in their religion and threatening others with legal action for "having too big a mouth" and talking about it. I therefore think it's definately important enough to go on the template, under beliefs. --Krsont 12:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. you have made a false and utterly wrong assumption based on misleading information. You should stop and discuss. There are good reasons why the template is arranged as it is arranged. If you are opening the door to a discussion of Xenu, I'll gladly talk with you about that. But if you are attempting to agree with me so that you can misrepresent the good sense of a collaberation of editors then you should certainly talk with someone ! Terryeo 13:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just get a little communication going with me about Xenu and I'll tell you everything you want to know about xenu and you can read all you want to about xenu and then maybe you'll stop doing dispersion and difficulty into the scientology template. we did a lot of work and discussion on a lot of talk pages to arrive at it. You don't know scientology, please stop destroying our collaberation.Terryeo 13:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See below. The article on wikipedia itself states that Xenu is a belief. Correcting a contradiction is not "destruction". The whole point of the collaberation in wikipedia is that you let others collaberate. --Krsont 13:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I follow your reasoning and understand your reference. But it was you who stuck Xenu into the "studies" section and then changed the heading "studies" to reflect your bad edit. Xenu goes in Controversy and the section should be headed "Scientology Studies" or "Educational Areas" or something. Terryeo 13:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

without discussion

and again, a second edit with no discussion. What is it with you, man? I would spell out the good sense of the template if you were willing to discuss. What, are you a hostile editor who seeks to destroy the good sense and hard work of a number of editors and their collaberation over a period of time? stop it.Terryeo 13:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's called Being Bold. A policy on wikipedia. I don't think either of my edits where particularly hostile or destructive. I added an informative link, and clarified a link. It read "scientology studies" before, but confusingly the link leads to "scientology beliefs and practices"; so I changed it. It also makes more sense seeing as the next section is titled "practices" that also links to the "beliefs and practices" page. --Krsont 13:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

includeing Xenu is bold. It goes in controversy. Editing "studies" into "beliefs" is based on ignorance and is destructive to the presentation of the articles which make up the scientology series. I'll try to spell it out to you. As an example let me direct you to MEST (Scientology. It is not a belief. it is an acronym. Matter, Energy, Space, Time. That isn't a belief, it is merely a word which stands for something. So too, ARC. It is an area of study, an education that a person can get. I'm sure you would not argue that a person has to "believe in the physical universe" to study the physical universe. Well, MEST is the physical universe except it is a scientology word for the physical universe. There are other specialized words also. ARC is Affinity, Reality, Communication. These are not beliefs, but areas of study. Additionally, if you click to the portion of article about reincarnation, you begin to get a clue of how it is a study and not a belief. And, to be frank, you might notice from the beginning, from the word. "Scien" (same root word science) and "-oloy" study of. But if you want the beliefs of Scientology then you find them at that article. Or, if you wish to have other persons interpret what they believe Scientology states as beliefs, Doctors of Divinity, esteemed scholors, etc. have commented at this link. [1]. umm, let's see, that's still not Xenu.Terryeo 13:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

please continue this conversation below, it's confusing having three conversations going at once. Suffice it to say: the Scientology intepretation of reality is based on belief, not scientific study. there's nothing wrong with belief, but characterising it as anything else is contradictory. --Krsont 13:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I get it

You are utterly convinced you are right and all the work by all the editors who created the template is wrong because I told you that including "xenu" in studies is wrong and it should be in "controversy" I might as well say, it angers me that you would think so little of so much work by so many editors that you would simply ignore it all and fiddle the template to your POV. Xenu goes in controversy if it is in the template. How obvious can it be?Terryeo 13:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be awfully defensive on this issue. Let me clarify: the article on Xenu states that it is a part of the Scientology doctrine. If you wish to push the POV that it was created by people who wish to harm Scientology by making it look bad, then you should take that up on the talk page at Xenu. As it stands however, it seems pretty clear - Xenu is a secret doctrine in a mystery religion, and as such is a belief. While there is a controversy surrounding this belief, it is first and foremost a belief, not a controversy (according to wikipedia itself). No other article in the controversy section is also a belief. As for the erroneous "studies" label, I fail to see the point of labelling it as such. It contains links to stuff about spirits and reincarnation, as well as some odd psychological beliefs that have no evidence to back up their claims. Sounds like a new age type religion to me, not a field of "study". Hence the change of the title to "beliefs" (which makes even more sense seeing as that's where the link already goes). --Krsont 13:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

well at least you are discussing and have quit destroying the collaberative work from many points of view which is the template. I understand, you looked at it after reading Xenu, and have the point of view that Xenu is a belief, have stuck it in "studies" and relabled "studies" to be "beliefs". I follow what you are saying and have done. Xenu belongs in controversy. Is it not obvious to you that it is controversy? It is presented on a website which is very obviously hostile to Scientology, is it not? What more reason would you need to at least discuss with a few editors? Don't just take my word for it, but talk to anyone who worked on the template. Any POV, for or against Sceintology will tell you "Xenu is controversy" when it comes to Scientology. I'm not sure what to do first here, talk Xenu or talk why it isn't "beliefs". Terryeo 13:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's a documented element of a belief system, why shouldn't it be under beliefs? I don't understand your argument. -- ChrisO 13:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not an element of a belief system. ChrisO, I believe you would rake any dirt to throw it on the pile. I have repeated this 2 times that I know of where you could read this, ChrisO. It goes in controversy. Obviously. How clear can it be to you. The document is public. The reason it is public is because it was involved in a trail. After the Church of Scientology had won their case, they asked certain documents be kept confidential from the public. Xenu was one of those documents they requested be removed from the public. The judge looked at it, called it a "fairy tale" and asked the Scientology lawyers how such a "fairy tale" from 75 million years ago (when the dinasours walked the earth) could have an possible need for secret belief. HA ! so it is public. And umm, why don't you ask any scientologist if they believe it. Do you believe that Hubbard could look back 75 million years ago and see that happened? and state it as fact? Do you really expect me to believe that? HA ! no, it isn't a belief. No the Church of Scientology doesn't comment on it. and Xenu goes in Controversy. No body gunna believe anyone believes that are they? HA ! Terryeo 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, Xenu is a controversy. But, as I have already stated, and ChrisO has also said, it is first and foremost a belief. The fact that it was brought to public attention through those who are against Scientology is not surprising, considering the mystery/initiation religion nature of Scientology. Much like Masonic or Golden Dawn occult traditions, or even the mystery religions of ancient Rome, many Scientology doctrines are kept secret from the public. But that doesn't mean they aren't beliefs, and that when they are publically available that they should be ignored by an information source such as wikipedia.I only renamed the section "Scientology Studies" when you drew attention to the fact it was erroneously labeled. "studies" is ambiguous, and pointless seeing as the link already leads to "Scientology beliefs and practices". The template was essentially at odds with the rest of wikipedia: characterising "Xenu" as an ignorable controversy, and labelling religious beliefs as "studies". I was helping with your collaberation in correcting and improving the template. I have the upmost respect and enthusiasm for wikipedia and the collaberative project, so I hope you won't continue to see my edits as destructive. --Krsont 13:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Xenu is not a belief of Scientology. I have said it several times. You just go right head and believe as you choose. I don't care what you believe, but I inform you once more, you are misinfomed. Actually you are misinformed from a person who has frequently misinformed poeple :)Terryeo 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no Scientology information which presents Xenu as a belief. All of your information is from other parties whom present to you that Scientology considers Xenu to be a belief. You are taking the word of someone who hates scientology and hopes to see scientology destroyed. You are taking thier word for it and you have never seen Scientology comment on Xenu at all. Should I ask Bush's worst enemy what Bush believes? That is what you are doing. The Church does not comment on Xenu. So, those who hope to destroy the church present Xenu any way they want to. It is not a belief of Scientology. This is the short version. The long version is exhaustive but the same result. Scientology doesn't comment. Hostile to Scientology sources claim Xenu is believed by Scientology. Terryeo 13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, continuing below. oh heck, I've run out of things to say. Terryeo 13:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, wikipedia, which strives for a neutral POV and does not hate scientology, describes Xenu as a doctrine of Scientology. Considering, as I have said, that Scientology is a mystery religion, it is no surprise that it's most secret beliefs where revealed to the public by those who have something against it, and it is also no surprise that the Church of Scientology itself refuses to comment on the issue. But that doesn't negate the central fact that most neutral sources, including wikipedia, do not belief Xenu to be a fabrication by enemies of Scientology. Yes, it is clearly a tricky issue, but I was not trying to push some radical POV by stating that Xenu is a real belief, or that the "studies" undertaken by the Church are anything more than belief. Wikipedia already states that they are. If you disagree, the articles Xenu and Scientology beliefs and practices are the places to do so. --Krsont 13:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. you are unwilling to discuss the issue.  ????Terryeo 14:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me how you don't get it. Xenu is not a doctrine of Scientology. That is the official Church Position, no comment. You would present a hostile point of view by putting Xenu in "beliefs" when the Church's official position is ..no comment.. In addition, you would present that Scientology does not have areas of education but instead has "beliefs". that is very very POV. for a body of informatio which presents itself in its name...study of knowledge.Terryeo 14:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It amazes me how you don't seem to get it - the official Church position to the public is obviously one of no comment seeing as it is a secret doctrine. However that's only one part of the story. Due to wikipedia's attempt at a NPOV, not just going with what the church says, the article on Xenu on wikipedia presents it as a real belief. Like I said, that's not my fault, so I don't see why you need to blame me for it on my talk page. All I did was add this informative and interesting article to the Scientology: Series template. Oh, and you also left out a part of the name there: the organization is not just "Scientology". It's "The Church of Scientology". I don't see any other "areas of education" calling themselves churches. --Krsont 14:13, 18 February

2006 (UTC)

All right. I will tell you exactly what it is. I am pretty sure you will not accept it. Here is what I believe is true. About 75 million years ago that Xenu incident happened. Its effect on people today is very slight. (this is what I think). However, when a person becomes very aware and before they can look at their past many billions of years of existence, they must first clear that slight bit of awarness that is blocked by the Xenu incident. If they do not, they can not look at their many billions of earlier years in a reliable, easy way.  :) Have a nice day Terryeo 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

wow, thanks for coming clean with me there. I respect your beliefs as a Scientologist, and hope others will do the same. I'm glad we had this conversation. You have a nice day too :) --Krsont 14:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

let me ask you something

How did you become convinced that ChrisO is right and the church of scientology's offical position is wrong and I am wrong and the work of many editors in developing the scientology template which you destroyed was wrong? How exactly did what you read and what ChrisO said to you lead you to that decision? Terryeo 14:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

After ChrisO came into the discussion, your opinion changed. Until that time we were discussing. What changed? How is it that ChrisO is able to say a word or two about me and so completely change your opinion that you do not accept anything that I say? Terryeo 14:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It must be all my body thetans, maybe? Or maybe not. How did my position change after ChrisO made a comment? --Krsont 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you present that? That is not a responsive answer. That says, "i'm over here and I'm not going to talk with you over there" it is a smarmy sort of reply that ChrisO used earlier with me when he was attempting to prove he was right and Wikipedia was wrong to follow WP:V. Why do you use such an attitude ? Terryeo 14:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. But seriously, I was confused by your question. I do not see how my position has changed, and I also don't see what verifiability has to do with this. --Krsont 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you with my question. I am attempting to ask you, what is not clear that Xenu goes in controversy and it is "Scientology Studies" rather than "Scientology Beliefs" ?

Terryeo 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you something more

Why can't you communicate in this area? I am, after all, being as straightforeward as I can be. I am telling you what I know, and I expect you are able to say what you know. Why can't we come to an agreement that 1. people can know and study things like MEST. and 2. xenu goes in "controversy" and not in beliefs?

... you just stated above that you believe the Xenu incident happened, even if it wasn't that important a thing in the long run. So clearly it is first and foremost a belief, not a controversy (the controversy comes later). And this belief, just like the other beliefs specific to the church of Scientology or professed by those who are members of it, are not primarily based on scientific investigation or study, and are therefore more accurately characterized as "beliefs" not "studies". This might not be the view of the Church itself, but per the NPOV of Wikipedia I feel it is important to mention that these are extremely fringe ideas and that they have little in common with scientific study as it is known by most people. I have already "communicated" this to you many times. --Krsont 14:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to communicate with you about why Xenu is not a belief held by any scientologist. And it is not a belief purported by the Church of Scientology, for sure. The Church does not even comment about it. We can talk here or anywhere. I am not trying to convince you so much as to hope that you realize there is an understanding of the word, "belief" which would place Xenu in controversy and not in "belief". Terryeo 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this link about Scientology beliefs would be helpful. Scientology_beliefs_and_practices#Beliefs_and_central_tenets_of_Scientology.Terryeo 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You yourself, on this very page, have stated that you believe the Xenu incident happened. It is therefore by definition a belief held by at least one Scientologist. Have you changed your definition of belief since that time? Why is it not a belief any longer? --Krsont 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Krsont I made that statement. How am I not communicating with you. Let me try it this way. I do not know whether Xenu was a real event or not. 75 million years ago is beyond my knowledge. It probably was a document which Hubbard wrote. I "believe" (in the sense that I suspect it happened but I do not know it happened) it probably happened. Would I try to convert anyone to my "belief" or suspicion ? Hell no. I don't know it happened, I can't know it happened. Am I making any sense to you yet? I somehow have the idea that you are thinking of me as believing every word written by Hubbard as the word of god. ChrisO has that effect on people, he spreads that kind of nonesense. I am trying to communicate to you and you are not getting it for some damn reason. Terryeo 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Krsont and Terryeo, it might be helpful to have another view. In Scientology there is something called the Time Track. This is all the mental image pictures a person has. Some contain pain, like birth. We don't talk about the details of birth because people can get sinusitus, colds, head aches etc., where those pains or body sensations are like those present in the baby at birth. The conditions of birth are well known. Birth is just a number of pictures containing pain and sensations. All of such related pictures is called an incident. When the incident is erased or viewed in detail, until the person is cheerful about it, it can no longer harm the person. Until that is done it can harm the person. Birth is not a "belief" of Scientology. It is just an incident, a set of related pictures. It only becomes important if a psycho starts talking the details of birth in someone face, restimulating his buttons and making him physically sick. If you still have a picture of birth, those details can hurt you. Now if you put "birth" on the template you can see that "birth" is not a belief, it is an incident. You know that it is and contains no secret belief. It contains no specific beliefs of Scientologists or anyone, it is just a picture of pain and sensation. My understanding is that this is the nature of the Xenu incident. It contains pain and should not be pushed in people's faces. It contains no belief or doctrine because very few Scientologists have ever even handled this incident and they know to not push it into other peoples faces. Now people who what to damage Scientologists alter the nature of that, to say it is "secret". Ignoring the fact the fact that few even know the details of it. Certainly the person who wishes to damage Scientology does not. But they can act in ignorance of its nature. It is painful and can cause overwhelm. A detail like a volcano, is not much. That was said in court. The details said at DMSMH were not said in court. More details are cumulative. Hubbard says not to talk about the details. I don't know what is so mysterious about Scientology, except that by its nature it seems to push other peoples buttons about mystery. Only a few pictures on a person's time track are painful. If you haven't confronted the pain of birth in this lifetime which you lived through, I hope you can respect that in other lifetimes you did die and some of them were painful. I suggest you take up such painful issues in due course, starting with easy ones so you can win doing so. Pushing the hard ones in peoples faces is damaging to them, but more so to you and ChrisO, as you will find in due course. It is not a secret belief, it is an incident. It was not even known until 1967. So it was impossible to have been a belief when the church was formed in 1954-55, no matter what ChrisO says. Birth has some importance to mankind. I expect the Xenu incident has its own importances. But that is not knowledge that is common to Scientologists, so it is not a Scientology belief. Any important beliefs that incident clarifies are published publically elsewhere in unrelated materials. I think the cruel joy for critics is that it is one of the few things that can make a Scientologist react, because he doesn't know what it is either. If this brand of sadism is your cup of tea then I suppose no one can stop you caressing this cruel sensation. But do you mind if I know that it is a streak of sadism in you and not misinformation from ChrisO or a "mysterious" "secret doctrine" of a "mystery religion"? It is just something you and ChrisO do. Spirit of Man 22:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Birth is an "incident", yes, but it only carries this odd association of fear and hatred in Scientology beliefs, as far as I know. Scientologists apparently believe birth, and even events that happened millions of years before birth, have a negative effect on the psychology of human beings. But I do not believe this, and most others do not either. I do not believe that birth can be remembered in cells, or that it imparts any negative feelings to humans in their later life - it is a perfectly natural process, something to be celebrated, not feared or avoided in conversation, and certainly not something that should make someone physically sick to talk about. Any attempt to associate it with these false feelings does not derive from the event itself, it derives from beliefs acquired afterwards. The idea that birth causes lasting trauma in every single human is such a belief, just as the idea that the souls of dead aliens also cause us trauma is. We would only associate trauma with these "incidents" (some of them real, some of them imaginary) if we are later taught to through the doctrine of Scientology. So, believe it or not, I did not mention Xenu in order to activate engrams or body thetans in terryeo to cause them pain. Very rarely does the thought of what happened to someone's imaginary cellular memory 75 million years ago inform my discussions on wikipedia. Xenu is painful, but only because it's spectacularly bad scifi. --Krsont 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I see.

You are unwilling to discuss, though you give the appearence of discussing. Alas.Terryeo 14:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I am only guessing. I suspect that someone told you that Scientologists, all and every one, hold the written word of Hubbard to be the word of god and true in all matters. I am only guessing. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is utter nonesense and drivel. If that is what mr. somebody told you and you believe it, you are very mistaken. I am trying to talk with you. Will you talk with me or will this proceed on and on and on untill a 3 revert edit war ensures, until ChrisO takes it to mediation again and again? What is stopping you from understanding what I am saying ?Terryeo 16:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I really have tried to communicate with you Krsont

You are now reverting the scientology template to include Xenu as a belief and using the reason, "POV Edit". And you have quit communicating about it, either here on your talk page or on the Scientology's template discussion page. Both Nuview and myself have told you the church's official position does not recognize Xenu as a belief, study or practice. Yet you continue your reverts and have quit communicating except to justify your edits as reverting a POV. What reasoning do you use? The body you are editing about (The Church of Scientology) does not comment on Xenu, but of course it doesn't comment on cheese, applesauce or banana bread either. What stray thoughts have convinced you that you know the Church of Scientology's position better than the Church of Scientology can state their position?Terryeo 15:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that the official position of the church is the only one wikipedia can portray - obviously not a NPOV. See the page Xenu for details on why Xenu, although officially denied by the church, is a part of their doctrine and, yes, beliefs. --Krsont 15:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I had not thought of it in that way. No, I don't care how the Church of Scientology is presented, as long as somewhere near the top of its presentation, the actual position of the Church is protrayed. I mean, if I'm talking green rocks and this other guy sees green and blue as one color, then I want my green rock presented before he desribes how "green" rocks don't exist. However, it is perfectly okay with me that he insists that everyone is blue-green color blind, etc. etc. But I want the Church presented as it would intend itself to be presented. The template is a helpful aid to naviagate the Scientology articles. Xenu would be defined controversy by any Scientologist. I guess that's my basic arguement. Even a person who had done all of the OT levels would (I think) put Xenu in controvery because it has spawned court cases, etc.Terryeo 00:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the cleanest way I can state it is in terms of the common dictionary's definition of what a religious belief is. I've posted a fair discussion on the template talk page Template_talk:ScientologySeries. Terryeo 09:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

It has everything to do with this issue. Xenu is presented by a group hostile to Scientology (obviously). That is a secondary source of information about the subject and not a primary source about the subject. What does the primary source say? Will you present it as secondary, hostile sources say, or will you present it as the primay source says, and then, additionally, present the secondary sources? I say the navigational template can have meaning unto itself, catagorizing new sujects and words for the reader, into subcatagories. Readers can find this helpful. Putting Xenu as a belief does not help a reader understand what Scientology is, nor what it studies nor what it "believes".Terryeo 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vedic

thanks for helping looking after these articles, I was beginning to feel a bit lonely there (alas, as you know, the scholar-to-redneck ratio on Wikipedia is appalling, not only on India related articles). dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome, although I'm not sure I can be called a "scholar" exactly... just someone trying to uphold a scholarly POV in the face of ignorance. --Krsont 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration - Terryeo

Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Requests for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 19:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

hinduism-origins

Origins of Hinduism - rv - it is completely false to represent Indian scholarly views as unified on this issue)

Do u think all the scholars unified about the issue of aryan invasion?i think it is justified to show to alternative point saying the the hinduism(&vedas) is originated in India.

a) most scholars are unified on the issue of the aryan invasion, yes - it never happened. The invasion theory was a result of the melodramatic minds of the 19th century. In reality linguistic transformation as a result of cultural and economic exchange as well as possible migration is a much more realistic model for the ingress of Indo-Aryan culture to the subcontinent, especially considering the archeological and genetic evidence that shows a clear continuity (a similar process is posited for the Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe). Ironically the rather racist notion of the invasion only continues to be represented as current in Indian nationalist literature.

b) the alternative view is shown; that nationalist groups reject the idea of the ingress of Indo-Aryan language and culture into India at that time. --Krsont 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert anymore because of WP:3RR. You have made 5 reverts so this is a WARNING from my side. Any other violation of 3RR to fulfill your POV is not acceptable and will be reported. The points is that that AIT is considered by many as false, the Hindutva theory is more the reverse of the AIT, explaining the linguistic similarities while refuting the idea that Hinduism was founded outside India. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no such idea that Hinduism was founded outside India. Hinduism is far more than Indo-Aryan religion, it's a synthesis involving Dravidian and even earlier religious traditions; it could only have developed inside India. The fact that North Indian languages, and perhaps some of their associated culture, have been proven to originate outside India, does not mean that Hinduism is not uniquely Indian. The view that the "AIT" (which I assume refers to the Indo-Europeanization of North India) is false is a nationalist one, the actual evidence does not support this view at all. This is why I revered the changes on the page Hindutva: actual historians and linguists would not and do not support this nationalist, ethnocentric rewriting of history.--Krsont 08:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Proven to originate outside India? There are no two races in India: there is one Indian race. "Dravidian" was invented by the British in their divide adn rule policy.Bakaman%% 16:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

never said anything about race, just language. Of which there are three main families in India: The Munda, the Dravidian, and the Indo-Aryan. The Indo-Aryan is a part of the larger Indo-European language family, and arrived when Aryan culture spread into India. --Krsont 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Aryan culture never "arrived" in India. Look at Europe, the PIE diffused into Latin and Germanic branches. India is such a large area that over the course of millenia, languages became sundered but retained a common root "Early (think Ramayan-style) Sanskrit). Since it is documented that the Southern people spoke Sanskrit then, that still gives 8000 years for languages to change. The most prized chanters of Vedic hymns/mantras are usually Tamil Brahmins. Would it really make sense for "Aryan-speaking" people to give preferred status to the invaded? The Munda language family is small and does not really figure into this.Bakaman%% 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheesy articles

I know it's disgusting, but casu marzu is real and not a nihilartikel - see [2], for instance, which is a reprint of an article from the Wall Street Journal, or [3], which has an incidental mention of "casu marzu, the maggot cheese". DS 14:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I have done some research on my own since I posted on the talk page and I have come to believe it probably is true. Still pretty odd though... --Krsont 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

I hope you'll not find my query untoward, but I wonder if you might explain why you reverted my removal of a discussion irrelevant to the encyclopedia at Talk:Grizzly-polar bear hybrid. The section you restored, into which information pertinent to the formatting of the article has now been entered, such that I'll not redelete the section, was wholly apropos of the propriety of hunting in general and of the killing of the hybrid in specific, and surely inappropriate for a talk page in view of WP:TALK and WP:TPG (viz., in the latter, Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article. and Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues.). Where talk pages diverge from the intendend purpose, refactoring is appropriate, and one's reverting such refactoring sans explanation is usually looked upon with disfavor. I'd be curious to know your reasoning and thank you kindly in advance for letting me know... Joe 04:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I just saw it'd been removed and assumed it was vandalism. I was under the impression that when someone blanks content, especially controversial content, that's what it counts as. --Krsont 10:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Vish?

I have read enough 'Vish'ilian literature. thank you. Regards.Bharatveer 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I must confess I have no idea what Vishilian is supposed to mean. --Krsont 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding AIT

By the way, mein freund. if you think that nobody in Academia believes in AIT enymore, then check the wikipedia article and talk page on the Aryan Invasion Theory. The people there might as well shave their heads, slap on hitler-mustaches and dance around the streets of Nuremberg yelling "Sieg-Heil"!Typical Witzellian racemongering Sauerkraut trash. (Netaji 06:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

the page itself states that that is a page on ideology and socio-political elements, not history. If you want history, go to Indo-Aryan migration. Please do not continue to confuse these topics. The only reason people are trying to dispute the extremist views of nationalists on the AIT page is because "Aryan Invasion" is the only phrase those nationalists know to which to refer to the migration of Indo-Aryans, so that's where they stick their POV edits regarding it. They're the ones obsessed with invasions. Also "sauerkraut" is a racial slur against Germans, please refrain from using it. --Krsont 10:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no great AIT or AIM (migration). What happened were many smaller wars and invasions over the course of thousands of years (Before 700AD when Islam came to the area). Blood was mixed and Sanskrit and Pali diffused outwards towards Afghanistan. Central Asians (the "Aryans") did/do not even speak IE languages, neither did/do Hurrians (Semitic), or Tartars (Turkic). Bakaman%% 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying Indo-European languages came from Sanskrit and Pali? then how did Sanskrit, a Satem language with a Dravidian substrate, end up forming the Centum languages of most of Europe, none of which show any signs of that Dravidian substrate? The development of the velar stop series in Indo-European languages only makes sense when the parent language is Proto-Indo-European, not Sanskrit; and the clear lack of a Dravidian substrate outside of India, even among those languages most clearly related to Indo-Aryan (Iranian languages) pretty clearly shows that the Indo-Aryan languages came into India proper from Central Asia. There is no way your claims can be supported without basically ignoring all we know about linguistics. Also BTW Hurrians didn't speak a Semitic language. Their language may have been related to modern Northwest Caucasian languages, but the hypothesis isn't proven. But it definately wasn't an Afro-Asiatic language. Although of course the Hurrians inhabited the Middle East, not Central Asia, so you may be rambling about something completely different. --Krsont 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The dravidian languages only developed literatue (Thirukurral and the like) at the start of the first millennium. This can easily be explained by the sundering of tongues. About the Central Asia thing. Most humans took the same path from Africa, so its obvious at the root that IE people share a common language. Sanskrit never formed German languages, you are misconstruing my words. The original IE settlers of India became the race of Indians, there was no languages pushed down. The "Dravidian" languages had again, at least 5-8000 years to become sundered from North Indian (Aryan) languages. If your "linguistics" mumbo-jumbo holds true. Where are the original central asians? All Central Asians speak Turkic languages. Bakaman%% 23:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say what the original Central Asian languages were, seing as they were replaced first by Indo-Aryan and then Turkic. My personal bet is that it might have been some relative of the Burushaski language. --Krsont 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Burushaski has not been found to be related to any family of languages. Perhaps a new AIT (Alien Invasion theory) can explain thisBakaman%% 23:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

... which makes sense if the Indo-Aryan and Turkic language expansion replaced all it's relatives. c.f. Basque in Europe. --Krsont 23:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't really on our discussion, but the page (Caste) is being vandalized by a Muslim person who is trying to erase the evidence for an Islamic caste system. I don't want to go 3RR so I kindly ask you to check it. Bakaman%% 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

IPA needed on We (novel)

Hi, could you add an IPA entry to We (novel)?
Sorry if you find yourself screaming ... :-)
Talk at Talk:We (novel)#Transliterations

--Jtir 05:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's much more concise. --Jtir 14:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Hindutva stuff? How about the secularist propaganda on the page? (as postulated by Indian patriotic sentiment).Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry let me correct myself. Pseudo-secular.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)