User talk:English Opening
Welcome!
|
Adding in fringe material[edit]
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.
Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.Please note that any edits you make to near-death experience and related articles are subject to this sanction. Goblin Face (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am, but I am not making any mistakes that you have actually pointed out. You keep making these arguments (it's pseudoscience, fringe sources, etc), and when I point out how and why you're wrong, you just ignore that. You are demonstrably dogmatic and won't listen to anyone disagreeing with you. English Opening (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have inserted fringe sources into the lead at least six times (maybe more actually), I could show diffs - you then claim in your edit summary you have consensus? From who? You refuse to discuss that very issue on the talk-page. One of your sources is Chris Carter (a paranormal book) from a spiritualist writer and don't deny it isn't a spiritualist book, the very same book you are quoting claims fraudulent mediums communicated with spirits. Carter is not taken seriously by the scientific community, he is not a scientist. Your edits are not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We don't put fringe sources from a minority opinion into the lead - Nobody is denying you can insert some fringe beliefs but not right into the lead, that is not appropriate weight. As for your long post on the talk-page it is excessive and has nothing to do with actually improving the article. Do you really think I am going to sit here for hours discussing your paranormal views? It seems you want to argue about the NDE from a fringe-point of view. If you want to debate at length the pros and cons of the NDE you are in the wrong place. Take that to a forum. Goblin Face (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have asked you repeatedly to argue why they're considered fringe sources when they represent what the actual scientists studying this phenomena demonstrably agree with. You have yet to answer. I must admit I'm not sure I understand what you mean by consensus - in the scientific community or the number of Wikipedia users agreeing with either one of us? Because if it's the former, then I have a vast consensus. Do you want me to quote what all the NDE researchers who are actually familiar with the totality of the data stand on this issue?
- Chris Carter has written no more a paranormal book and is no more a spiritualist writer than Susan Blackmore (who has even been caught lying about her own data to support her claims, and still gone on to lie afterward about it). I have already stated this explicitly, but you are demonstrably having a problem with his conclusion rather than with his methodology. Is that so hard to comprehend? He is being extremely rigorous and scientific in his approach, citing actual scientists and their studies up and down all over his books. You are also indicating that you've read his books - is this true? If so, it should be really easy where and how he's doing what you're accusing him of. If you have a problem with mediumship research that's your problem, not mine. I think you would benefit from reading Neal Grossman's article "Who's Afraid of Life After Death?", because you are clearly confused about how the scientific method actually works. And he, a professional philosopher of science, may set you straight with the explanation he provides there of why it's perfectly possible for science to study these phenomena and arrive at non-materialistic conclusions. Either way, Chris Carter is being taken seriously by scientists and philosophers. Bruce Greyson is one of the most respected NDE researchers, and this is what he has to say of it:
- "Chris Carter's tightly reasoned approach and his encyclopedic grasp of the research make Science and the Near-Death Experience the best book on NDEs in years. The clarity of Carter's writing and the breadth of his scholarship make this an ideal resource for both experts and those new to the field. This book brings much-needed insight and common sense to our understanding of NDEs."
- There is no minority opinion here, as I've already explained numerous times. The vast majority, if not all actual NDE researchers who collect their own data, come to the conclusion that the NDE can't be explained as hallucination. Fact. The people who believe that the NDE is a hallucination are those that haven't studied it. Fact. My lead makes this perfectly clear. Yours doesn't. Mine is more informative, accurate and actually sourced. Additionally, if we're making the claim that "[...]parapsychologists, some philosophers and most NDE researchers consider them to be evidence for an afterlife and mind-body dualism.", it needs to be sourced as well. My last two sources do that aptly.
- My long discussion has a lot to do with that, and it's not my "paranormal views". Again, your language betrays you as completely non-serious. If you don't have the time to engage with this article in a mature manner, why do you insist on controlling it so adamantly? English Opening (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014[edit]
Your recent editing history at Near-death experience shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was not aware of this rule. I shall refrain from editing that article again for the time being. English Opening (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Advice[edit]
You've made many good points on "Near-death Experiences", but the best route is probably to get the rest of the community involved by filing an RFC or perhaps posting something at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to bring in input from a more diverse and hopefully objective group. You're dealing with a philosophical dispute over what would constitute a reliable source / respectable research for something like this, as well as a possible Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issue (a certain editor seems to be trying to dominate that article and seemingly several others on related topics, which violates Wikipedia policy). Ryn78 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)