User talk:Kala Bethere

Welcome

Welcome. Interesting that you have just appeared today, Kala and immediately began commenting on the TM article only. Where have you come from? Happy New Year. --BwB (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Kala Bethere, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple request: Note that the Wikipedia Guideline for Talk pages suggests not using upper case and bold in your comments. TimidGuy (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions, Timid. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments on John Hagelin page

Kala, I assume you are new editor and as such may not be aware that one of Wikipedia's fundamental and founding principles is collaboration. Labelling editors as apologists, and journals as pseudoscience in fact any labeling at all can only create a less than positive environment, and is opinion. We all have our opinions here but we have to try and leave opinions that do not deal directly with the article off the talk page, not always easy to do , but the best for all editors involved. Just a thought or two.(olive (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

To add: The John Hagelin article is a WP:BLP. BLP articles must stringently adhere to the use of very reliable sourced content, and even consensus cannot override WP:Policy.(olive (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

I second Olive's first comment here. We are happy to welcome well informed editors to collaborate on the articles, but please try to keep your comments on the content of the article, not on the editors. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I fear what you two are missing is the utter disgust and contempt I have for, alleged, "omission by silence" editors who block the posting of a Stenger comment, by deliberately choosing to parse language in such a way to falsely render it editable or removable. I would be deeply concerned if this trend extends beyond this page. It is possible that our MUM.edu editors would not know about John Hagelin's two decade long history of championing for (indeed he was the Maharishi's front man) "quantum consciousness". It's just not very believeable. So therefore, if the various MUM.edu editors are deliberately causing entries to be wrongly edited or removed, this is far from neutral posting, and sharply against the spirit of the Wikipedia.

Of course the reason behind such a change would be to boost MUM.edu's own rebuttal, against Stenger, and assuring their finer placement. What makes it even more disturbing would be if such behavior could be seen beyond this particular (John Hagelin) entry. This could be perceived as Vandalism, but I certainly hope that is actually not the case.

That MUM.edu editors would be not be aware of Hagelin's championing of quantum-consciousness ideas, and choose to remain silent to Will Beback could possibly be becasue they live far from campus or some other unusual reason that we're unaware of. --Kala Bethere (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not removing sourced text

Kala, it is not correct Wiki editing to removed sourced material from the TM article without discussion and consensus. You may not agree with the text in the article, but you just cannot remove well referenced material based solely on opinion. Please discuss it with other editors and get agreement before deletion. --BwB (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi BigWeeBoy. Please check the discussion pages for these very topics before posting here. If you'd like to respond to the discussion items, please do, I'm anxious to hear your comments. Cheers.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been involved in the discussion on the TM talk page, but I thought I would make the specific points on your talk page to highlight the importance of following Wiki guidelines on sourced material. --BwB (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Respect towards living people

Regardless of our personal feelings towards the subjects we write about it's best to avoid disrespectful comments about them, even on talk pages. Making derogatory (or laudatory) comments tends to polarize the discussion and usually doesn't help improve the article. While it may seem like a subtle distinction, there is really a world of difference between saying something like "Smith, who has been called a crackpot, says..." and "That crackpot Smith says..." Separately, thanks for bringing your insights to the topic. Wikipedia articles are required to include all significant points of view, and it's hard for any one editor to know what all of those may be on a big topic like the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the comments of someone else that I might have quoted? I believe (but it's hard to be sure, since you did not quote me) you may be referring to a quote from physicist Peter Woit in his book Not Even Wrong? I cannot apologize for him but I did also find his wording rather strong, but understandable coming from a physicist. It's also important to understand that while some may be offended by the word "pseudoscience" when applied to something close to them, as a scientist speaking from a scientists point of view, there's no other rational and scientific way to for me to describe someone who claims the Vedas, the Bible or whatever old religious text is actually a quantum mechanical code for the sequential unfolding of all of creation. So you have to understand that side, esp. if you're not a scientist yourself.

Would I have used those words to describe Hagelin?

No, I wouldn't of, because I was once a huge fan (I mean how many quantum physicist sex symbols are there?). Until relatively recently that is.

I never would have imagined I would have seen the things I saw when I went back through the discussion pages. I was quite literally aghast.

What people will do, it's amazing.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The main point is just to remember that Hagelin is a living person and that Wikipedia has a policy to prohibit making derogatory comments living people, though of course we can discus the derogatory comments made in reliable sources. It's just a matter of following the golden rule. I'm not quite sure why you lost faith in Hagelin, or what you're aghast about. If those issues are related to improving the article then they should be raised on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What I was aghast about was looking back over the talk history and finding people being very intellectually dishonest, by withholding information around you. I'd already addressed this issue of "omission by silence" elsewhere. Again I'm not sure which derogatory comments you're referring to (no quote or link) and again repeat that labels like pseudoscience are not necessarily derogatory, but a statement of the facts at hand. For a good review of Vedism and Pseudoscience in India and abroad, I recommend Meera Nanda's excellent writings on the topic.

Re: Hagelin, when my respect began to wane was when it was said by TM Org insiders and friends that he knew that consciousness (or "pure consciousness") was not synonymous with the "Unified Field", but supported it in order to gain close access to the Maharishi (which was a common dynamic). Had he refused to do so (support UF and Quantum connections to Maharishi's Neo-vedism) he would surely joined past non-supporters of MMY's ideas, and be sent packing. He kissed his career goodbye and joined the TM movement as a close insider, promoting a connection between Maharishi's Neo-vedic ideas and dazzling people with the lingo of his former career. Despite these failings and the loss of professional integrity, Hagelin remained until relatively recently, a charming and convincing public speaker.--Kala Bethere (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hagelin picked one career instead of another. He seems to have done alright. There are hundreds of quantum physicists, but there's only one Raja of Invincible America. But whatever his choices, we should do our best to treat him in a neutral manner when we are editing.

As for the behaviors exhibited on here on Wikipedia, again I suggest the golden rule - treating others as we'd wish to be treated. When it comes to content, if there are specific issues then let's address those.   Will Beback  talk  06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder how much time you've had with the movement/TM/TM-Sidhi?

He was forced into his current situation according to close friends, or he would have had to be expelled. If he'd simply changed careers, why would anyone care? When you throw away a career and begin becoming involved in pseudoscientific endeavors which supports a questionable yogi and it keeps a set of myths operating which keep people lock-stepped in a an org of greed, suicide and insanity, that not your average career change Will. Esp. if you've experienced the disasters in peoples lives. While it may seem even cool to be this wild physicist who's investigating the Vedas and the Ramayana as the source of creation and diversity, just put that story in western terms for minute. How would the world react if Einstein had dropped relativity theory as an ongoing pursuit and instead tried to connect relativity to the disappearance of people in fairy-rings and who believed the tales of fairies were related to new discoveries in physics? They would have thought he went off the deep end. His scientific credibility would have been shot. Forget it if he claimed people could join in fairy-circles to create world peace. While containing a wonderful sentiment (the desire for world peace), it would be so manifestly whacky that it would be the end of Einstein as we knew him. If he started dressing up as the Fairy King, with a crown, and lecturing, this would only further cement his downfall, although true believers in the quantum use of fairy circles would champion his cause. Despite all of this, he could still remain a charismatic and charming speaker. In the end though, we have much more than a man who simply "picked one career instead of another". Much more.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are a new user

Kala, I wanted to mention that if you are a new user, Wikipedia has a WP:3RR limit after which a 4th revert the user can be blocked. I don't believe you are at 3RR yet, but wanted to give you advance notice. Oddly you seem like an experienced editor. Have you edited Wikipedia in the past under another user name.(olive (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks Olive, obviously I'm not that very experienced. It is my understnaing that the excpetions to the #RR rule is:

"Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting"). (Reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, so self-reverting will not breach the rule.)"

Am I missing something here? If it's one own text, it sounds like one could revert it as many times as you chose, without reprisal, no? It would be the person altering the text continually that would be in violation.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-reverting your own edits means that you would edit and then directly remove that specific edit yourself.(olive (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

MVAH

I think you may have placed a comment in different section than you intended,[1] which is easy to do. Perhaps it belongs better at the end of "MEDRS example", where we discuss a review? I have a response, but I first wanted to check with you about which thread it should go in.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right Will. Sorry about that. I'm still getting used to editing.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)