User talk:Skoojal

Skoojal Talk Archive 1

Skoojal Talk Archive 2

Conversion Therapy Article

I posted the following on the discussion page:

"On your first point, I thought that the existing sentence made the proposition that "some in the ex-gay community believe that sexual orientation cannot be completely changed" appear to be a widely-held view within ex-gay circles, despite the fact that the only citation offered was a cite to a comment made by Alan Chambers in an interview. If anyone is aware of other ex-gay individuals or organizations that hold a similar perspective, please feel free to add some footnotes. I thought it was more accurate to state the majority ex-gay perspective (i.e. that sexual orientation can be completely changed) first -- citing to a variety of organizations that have expressed that view -- and to then make reference to Mr. Chambers' views. On your second point, I can understand your concern about that source. I have not been able to find a comparable source for the same proposition, so I deleted the sentence relating to bias against pro-conversion-therapy studies in academia. Hope that helps."

I did revert the sentence on complete change to sexual orientation and re-insert my footnotes. I hope you do not object.

SCBC (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying; I'm not necessarily going to revert immediately, because you probably have a point about the use of Chambers as the source; I'll consider this. Skoojal (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AR

Let's work towards consensus on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained the edit at the CfD page. Please see WP:CAT for more information on how to use categories. Specifically: " Normally articles should not appear both in a category and a "parent" of that category;" per Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also be aware the undoing edits over and over may violate WP:3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the above messages. I wasn't familiar with the part regarding categories. I am familiar with the three-revert rule. Skoojal (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mileva Maric

Skoojal: You posted the following message for me, Esterson, 28 August 2008: >Hello Esterson, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sure that your edits to Mileva Marić were well-intentioned. Unfortunately, I do not think that your blog counts as a reliable source, so I have removed much of what you added. Please see the Reliable Sources guideline here[1]. Skoojal (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)<

Having checked the Wikipedia statement on reliable references, I see your point. However, let me try to explain why in this instance this results in a scholarly anomaly, in that published books and articles which are full of errors are referenced on the Mileva Maric page, while my articles, in which I have meticulously traced original sources to determine which are reliably documented, are disqualified.

Let me quote three Einstein specialists on my writings. John Stachel, founding editor of the Albert Einstein Collected papers: "Thanks for sending your articles. I admire you for having the guts to go through the whole series of entangled falsehoods..."

Robert Schulmann, historian, associated editor, AE Collected Papers: "Dear Allen, looked again with some care at your sites, and am most impressed. Great work."

Gerald Holton (physicist, historian of physics): "I was glad to read of your interest in correcting the blatant perversion of the role of Mileva Maric in the Australian film, /Einstein's Wife/. The essays on your websites should be required reading by all who have been taken in by this film - the NPR officials, the unsuspecting readers of the story on the PBS website, the viewers of this pseudo-'documentary', the helpless teachers who might fall for this lie."

Note that the PBS "Einstein's Wife" documentary and website that are cited on the Wikipedia Mileva Maric website are condemned as a perversion of history by all three Einstein scholars, who were misled into being interviewed for the film. Yet that reference to "Einstein's Wife" is allowed to remain while my scholarly, fully referenced critiques, highly praised by the Einstein specialists, are disqualified. Do you not see an anomaly here, regardless of the "regulations".

Some more specifics: The Troemel-Ploetz (1990) reference is allowed to remain, but as I show in my critique of her article, it is an example of consistently poor scholarship. Do read the following critique and you'll see that I have demonstrated this to the hilt: http://www.esterson.org/Who_Did_Einsteins_Mathematics.htm

Most of Troemel-Ploetz's article consists of uncritically recycling unsubstantiated claims made in Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric's book *Im Schatten Albert Einsteins. Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric.* Both in my critique of Troemel-Ploetz, and in my article http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm I have examined all the claims about Maric in relation to Einstein's work and shown they are without substantiation. Yet, again, Trbuhovic-Gjuric's book is referenced on the Mileva Maric page, while my scholarly critique that exposes the consistent hollowness of her claims is disqualified.

As I say, I understand why you decided to disqualify my writings, but, given the praise I have received from Einstein specialists, and their denunciation of the PBS film that includes much erroneous material from Troemel-Ploetz and Trbuhovic-Gjuric, I urge you to read my two articles I cited above to see if in this case the editors of Wikipedia should not, in the interests of scholarly accuracy, consider relaxing the rule on reliable references. After all, both Troemel-Ploetz's and Trbuhovic-Gjuric's writings are allowed to be referenced, despite the fact they are utterly unreliable. (Trbuhovic-Gjuric, for instance, contains no notes, no bibliography, and its assertions in the text are almost entirely unreferenced.) Esterson (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Have you two editors met in another forum? If so, please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback: thank you for your concern that Esterson and I may have encountered each other before and that we may be enemies. We have, and we are, although the issues we have clashed on in the past have nothing to do with the article on Maric, and since we're both grown-ups, I'm sure we can behave sensibly. Esterson seems to have pretty much conceded my point about reliable sources. His past experiences on the articles about Sigmund Freud and Jeffrey Masson should have told him what happens when one tries to use one's blog as a source in this way. The fact that Esterson's conclusions may actually be closer to the truth (as is certainly possible) alas has nothing to do with the issue. Skoojal (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)