Jump to content

User talk:EdJohnston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikiuserthea (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 27 April 2015 (→‎Oliszydlowski's case re: Rosa Raisa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


About Nihal Atsiz and Pan-Turkism

Thanks for the information. But what is the exact "sanction" on these articles? If my addition revert again by another user, (or other possible edit wars and etc.) what should I or anyone do?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AC/DS. You are merely alerted that these sanctions exist. On certain topics, admins watch any edit warring with extra care. If you make effective use of the talk page before any controversial edits you should be on safe ground. The sanctions allow editors to be topic banned by any administrator and they allow placing WP:1RR restrictions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with semi-protecting Urdu

User:Thomas (or whatever his name is) removed several informative external links that were already there. This does not give IP editors a fair chance to contribute while allowing the user to repeatedly removes links without fair justification. He has made it a point to scan for anything linking to Omniglot, an online encyclopedia of spoken languages and scripts. This is also despite the sites main page using valid academic sources as citations. Prior to this the user made several excuses for removing external links and comes up with a new excuse each time to do this. I would appreciate that the article be unprotected or the user be at least informed to stop removal of informative external links. I also presented the argument that individual articles on movies use IMBD as an external link which he keeps evading or even once bluntly lying, claiming that it's used as a reference and not an external link. I'll even provide the diff if you require.

Previously he claimed that adding it on a few articles is OK (which I did- I added it to Finnish, Hindi, Urdu and Carrebean Hindustani, all which were removed). As you can see his stubborness and evasiveness makes it very hard to avoid this problem. Please unprotect the article or at least warn the user to stop blanking out informative external links; especially when they are in no way or form "advertising" which he insists on calling them.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider proposing your links for consideration at the WP:External links/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I never had any contact with the IP until well after reverting the first link I saw, on Finnish language, and right after that also removing them from a few other articles I found them on, so the claim that I have said that it's OK to add it to a small number of articles is a blatant lie. And I don't call the links "advertising", they were reverted because they clearly violate WP:ELNO (it's a personal website, run by a single guy from his bedroom: http://www.omniglot.com/about.htm ; a guy who is just a hobbyist, and not a recognised expert in the field...). Thomas.W talk 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Notes

That is ok. The topic ban on Nulla Taciti seemed a bit too mild though, considering the user's personal attacks against me on AN/EW ([1]). I do not remember ever interacting with them in the past before their edit-warring and removal of links to Wahhabism, so their comments makes no sense. Also, reporting a user for an obvious violation of WP rules does not equate with harassing a user, it was only an attempt from me to protect the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant from disruption. Thank you, anyways. Khestwol (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is now resolved per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: Restriction for one week). EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The band in question did chart in Germany, but I was unable to find any specific charts. Please don't encourage CrazyAces' bad behavior, I know you are a smart user. He/she is only doing this as revenge and it's wrong. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 15:53, 21 April 2015

Yom Kippur War

Hello. I was researching the Yom Kippur War and found that Wikipedia's information on the result of the war to be misleading(slightly). Wikipedia claims Israeli victory. This is not entirely true. After watching a reliable documentary (Western, not pushing for Western and/or Arab views) claimed that there was no clear cut victory. Israeli sources also claimed so, yet claim victory was theirs. However, the war ended in a military tie (arguably a military victory for Israel) since it lost the last battle, broke the cease-fire, was trapped between Egyptian armies after losing the Suez Battle yet surrounding the Third Army. In terms of diplomacy and politics, Israel lost to Egypt. Israel did not keep Sinai as wanted to and Egypt got it all. Therefore, it was a political victory for Egypt. On the Syrian side, Israeli military victory is unarguable, however, in diplomacy, Israel lost a strip of the Golan Heights. Furthermore, Israelis staged protests against the government after the war, claiming the government failed because of the losses and loss of Sinai. Therefore, Military Stalemate on Egyptian Front, Egyptian Political Victory, Israeli Military Victory on Syrian Front. This is based on plenty of sources. Please do reply since this war is a sensitive topic for the countries involved (except America). Infor4fun (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun[reply]

Hi decided to re-read the article on Wikipedia. There is a claim that Egypt violated the cease-fire. I researched this point. Both Israeli and American sources confessed that Kissinger gave Israel the green light for an Israeli offensive that violated the ceasefire. Furthermore, the link for the citation about this is a dead link (possible removed by the site owner). I am seriously upset at the lack of accuracy and bias in this topic. It is not professional for such things to be written on Wikipedia. Due to your interest and revisions of this topic I thought you would be the best person to contact. Please do see to this matter. False information on Wikipedia is a saddening matter especially that Wikipedia is intended to be accurate. Thank You. I hope to see you reply soon. Infor4fun (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun[reply]

Speaking as a regular editor, I wouldn't find these arguments very convincing. The outcome of the war is uncertain because the battle was frozen by the cease fire. Without rerunning history, we can't tell what would have happened if the armies had continued to fight. If you include outcomes reached by the later Sinai peace deal, you are blurring the causality. Due to the 1978 Camp David Accords, Israel achieved a guarantee of her Sinai frontier which could have been worth the tradeoff. Portraying that as a 'loss' for Israel due to the 1973 war is far-fetched. Our article on the Camp David Accords says that "In Israel, there is lasting support of the Camp David Peace Accords, which have become a national consensus, supported by 85% of Israelis according to a 2001 poll taken by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies (Israel based)." EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your reply. I agree that the outcome of the war by military is uncertain, which is why using the term stalemate is more appropriate unless you were to say result: cease-fire which may be even more appropriate. When I discussed result about win and loss with Egypt I talked about the Political side not military! Based on your words, we both agree about the military side of things. However, Israel broke the initial cease-fire, in wars this signals the desperation for any gain, this is not necessary if the country is winning anyway! Anyway, speaking of the Camp David Accords, several Western and unbiased sources have pointed out that Egypt achieved the most out of the accords, which demanded Israel leave the Sinai. Israel's benefit was the peace and some trade between her and Egypt. I say loss because Sinai had traditional and economic importance to Israel -- particularly oil. Furthermore, note that Egypt's goal of the war was to regain Sinai so that is a victory for her. Please do not base your replies upon Wikipedia sources. Please use other sources that are valid, I only say this because Wikipedia is unreliable in so many articles. It is banned from usage in Universities and usually in schools in this country -- and probably most in the world! Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun[reply]

- Hi. I live in Israel. Both sides won by signing the 1978 peace agreement Israel- Egypt, and no one lost.
-Concerning the 1973 war, Kissinger took advantage of both sides problems, in order to end the war in a position in which the U.S can press both sides. He wanted Israel to surround the Egyptian third army so the Egyptian became dependent in the U.S in order to save this army from a disaster. On the other hand he made it clear to Israel that destroying of the 3rd army is forbidden. Israel had to accept the demand since it was dependent in the U.S for fighter aircraft, weapons and shells.
- At the war beginning, the Soviets supplied the Arabs with an airlift but Kissinger delayed the American airlift to Israel in order to press the Israelis. After 1 week Israel had to accept his proposal for a ceasefire in the current front line, which was a good achievement for Egypt and militarily bad for Israel. However, Sadat became too confident and refused to this ceasefire proposal. Kissinger responded by opening the gates and releasing the full scale American airlift to Israel. This supply enabled the Israeli crossing of the canal which became the Israeli military victory. As I recall, initially there were no Egyptian tanks between the Israeli army and Cairo and no defense line. But this is an hypothetical scenario since the U.S wouldn't allow such an attack. BTW it seems that Arab sources , other than Egyptian or Syrian, are not claiming that Egypt won the war.
- The Israeli popular protest after the war was not related to the future "loss" of Sinai. The public justifiably felt that the government and the general let them down with their pre-war hollow assessment that the Israeli army was prepared for a war. The large number of killed Israeli soldiers and the misbehavior of the generals were not conceivable for the public. Ykantor (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for joining the discussion Ykantor. Nice to know you especially that you are an Israeli (at least live there). I am a New Zealander. Thank You for that well-explained reply. All the more, it seems this war has no actual winner as you said both sides won! The American airlift (Operation Nickel Glass) was a very important decision for Israel. Now concerning the result displayed on the English Wikipedia I find it inaccurate to claim that Israel won solely. Simply because of the Camp David Accords, which gave Egypt the Sinai it wanted and Israel the peace it wanted. With the research I've done so far, it would be more appropriate to state how each country 'won' the war. Egypt's accomplishment of regaining Sinai, Israel's military turning the tables and a Peace lasting till now. Or simply UN Ceasefire. Which would you go with and why? Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun[reply]

This discussion should move to Talk:Yom Kippur War. As an admin, my role is only to be sure there is a discussion instead of an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Thank You. So I will take it that you would prefer any further discussion concerning this topic to be in that page right? By the way, this is not an edit war, just merely a discussion as to what the result actually is. Thank You Infor4fun (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Infor4fun[reply]

You asked for editing in non Bohra areas

Dear EdJohnston you asked that I edit other areas of wikipedia. That has been done over the last few weeks. Please see my history.Noughtnotout (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let me know what you would consider to be reliable evidence that one party or the other had won the Dawoodi Bohra succession? EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ed. You have asked a tough question which I have been thinking over and over but I fear there is no outright answer. How do we define a 'winner'? The winner has to be the one upon whom Nass (Islam) was conferred. But that is exactly where the same reliable facts are seen by different parties in different ways.
Nass is the cornerstone of Shi'a belief. It requires every predecessor to appoint his successor before dying.
The 51st Da'i al Mutlaq, Taher Saifuddin wrote a treatise[1] on the entire concept of nass with examples of how it was conferred from the time of Muhammed himself through to his day. And it is from that first instance of Nass (Islam) that the differences emerge. Evidence is acknowledged by both Sunni and Shi'a of Muhammed's high regard for Ali and its reliablity is not disputed, the historical fact is that the Sunni have not interpreted this as Nass (Islam) and instead upheld an electoral process that took place to nominate Muhammed's successor after he had died.
A precedent with similarity to that being witnessed today is the one that lead to the naming of the Bohra as 'Dawoodi'. The incumbent Dawood bin Qutubshah was challenged by Sulayman bin Hassan. This challenge was taken to the court of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. Whether as an outcome of Akbar's decree or otherwise - Dawood bin Qutubshah remained 'Syedna' to the majority which became what we know to day as the Dawoodi Bohra while another faction still exists known as the Sulaymani Bohra - mainly in The Yemen. To my knowledge the evidence of nass that Sulayman proffered was a signed, written document - the authenticity of which was disputed.
In the present dispute it seems again that it is not the existence of evidence that is in question but its authenticity or its meaning. From the Saifuddin side there is a video, relayed live and to all Bohras around the world, showing Muhammed Burhanuddin in an apparent direct conferral of nass in Mumbai. However Qutbuddin refutes both this - as Nass (Islam) - as well as another video taken on a mobile device of Muhammed Burhanuddin apparently conferring nass for the first time publicly whilst in his hospital bed in London after suffering quite a severe stroke. (This took place in the same month as the worldwide relay but a few days prior). Qutbuddin and his followers contend that neither of these demonstrates an explicit nass and suggest that both are, to some degree at least, being stage managed and without Muhammed Burhanuddin's consent.
Additionally Saifuddin has shown in public written diary entries said to be signed by Muhammed Burhanuddin and witnesses designating him as his successor. Their authenticity is questioned by Qutbuddin and the signatories are no longer alive. The witnesses of Burhanuddin's privately spoken nass (those that took place before the public ones and spoken of after his death) are the brothers of Saifuddin and so their word is refuted on the basis of nepotism.
From Qutbuddin's side the evidence is the claim that he was privately given nass by Muhammed Burhanuddin some five decades ago when he says he was also instructed not to reveal it until Burhanuddin's death. He cites as precedent of the 7th Da'i al Mutlaq who is said to have pronounced nass in private to his successor without any witnesses. There is no report that the validity of that nass was disputed although interpretations of the texts about this nass are again different. Since it happened many centuries ago and written record is sparse it is probably going to remain a matter of contention even for scholars.
Qutbuddin gives examples of what he says are 'esoteric' nass - words, actions or instances - that he says constitute an 'inferral' of nass and carry equal weight. eg 'the beloved son الولد الاحب ' address by Burhanuddin which he says is resevered for a spiritual 'son' and successor. His side also highlights his position as Mazoon for 50 years, the second highest rank in the mission and is a mantle they claim indicates that he is beyond reproach. ie that he would never claim something unless it was true. It should be noted that not all successors have been Mazoons and not all Mazoons have become Da'i al Mutlaq.
This and no doubt a great deal of other arguments are what the Bombay High Court are going to try and adjudicate on. As I am hoping that I have shown, any adjudication is unlikely to result in a significant change of heart of the followers of the 2 sides. Even if the court declares a 'winner' almost certainly the process will continue with appeals from the 'losing' side and in India this could be extremely protracted. In the meantime the two groups will most likely continue to follow their 'Syedna' as was the case with the Sulaymani/Dawoodi Bohras and then later the Alavi/Dawoodi Bohras.
The situation on the ground at this time is that Qutbuddin sought interim relief [2] preventing Saifuddin from administering the community's affairs. This was not granted by the Bombay High Court. Separately the UK Charities Commission continues to name Saifuddin as the Sole Trustee in accordance with the UK Dawat Hadiyah Act[3] which recogizes the authority of the Da'i al Mutlaq. A similar situation is found in North America. Saifuddin is administering the waqf properties of the Dawoodi Bohra such as mosques, madrasahs, schools and other educational institutes and mausoleums. He has taken the oath of allegiance from all the community members who volunteered it to him. There is no report of any jamaat body (local adminsitrative bodies in towns and cities where Bohras reside) taking any stand opposing his succession.
It is this administration right over the mission and its assets that the Court ruling will affect but not necessarily the allegiance of the followers.
Has this answered your question? If not then I'd be happy to try again.Noughtnotout (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

Hello Ed, Thanks for your comments and advice on my talk page regarding the conflict over COI issues. I am, however, greatly disturbed by the behaviour of Jytdog towards me on these matters and would appreciate your mediation if possible. He is making a number of false accusations about "advocacy" and "agendas". Thanks, Anglicanus (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an example? You seem to think he is defending TITUSIIX against some valid charges of yours, but it's hard to get any idea of what you're concerned about. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to be more specific because of Wikipedia's restrictions on outing and slander etc. For these reasons, even though my concerns are both informed and legitimate, I am constrained in saying much about them. If I could I would. If the editors who have been criticising me knew about the real story with this then they would, I hope, appreciate my concerns instead. There are a number of other editors who have been very aware in recent years of the promotional, COI and sockpuppet activities on other articles related to this very newly created "Old Catholic church" so I am not at all alone in my concerns. Anyway, thanks for your advice and listening to me. I appreciate your helpful manner. Anglicanus (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, with a COI issue there is something bad happening to an article which you can point to. All I can see from your post is that you are putting quotes around "Old Catholic church", suggesting you see something fishy. What can it be? EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many recently formed bodies, especially in the United States, calling themselves an "Old Catholic church". They usually have little if any genuine connection to the historically established Old Catholic Churches. Some of these bodies, particular American ones, are the ecclesiastical equivalents of fraudulent diploma mill "universities". Many of these "church" bodies also offer unaccredited degrees and this is often the prime focus of their existence. Anglicanus (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at List of Old Catholic churches and notice some that you don't think are legitimate? What would the test be? EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a look. Most of these will be very small bodies, often only a few people or even an individual. Some only seem to exist in people's minds or on the internet. There is a long history of psychological fantasy and charlatanism with many of these "Old Catholic" bodies and they are often very active on Wikipedia making themselves seem more legitimate than they are in reality. As a general rule the more concerned they are to assert their legitimacy the less legitimate they actually are. Anglicanus (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliszydlowski's case re: Rosa Raisa

Hello Mr. Johnston,

Let me provide you with the extensive quote from her biography written by Charles Mintzer, who is a close friend to Raisa's family, a scholar and specialist in her life and career, and whose biography with her published letters is considered the most authoritative source about this singer. The book was published by one of the most prestigious academic presses in classical music and opera in the US. It was reviewed in top-tier academic journals including The Opera Quarterly (Oxford). I know Charles Mintzer personally and he is aware of this ongoing dispute. He is shocked about Oliszydlowski's editing harassment and onslaught on her identity (at one point, Oliszydlowski even invented a Polish version of her name (removing her documented Yiddish name) on her Wikipedia page (using his IP address!) .

The quote follows: "Raisa's languages included Yiddish, Hebrew (for prayer), Russian, Italian, French, English, and probably Spanish and some Portugese from her extensive stays in South America. ... Considering that she eventually became a naturalized U.S. citizen, probably the best definition of her ethnicity and unique persona is as an Italian-trained Russian Jew who ultimately lived the American dream of success as an internationally acclaimed opera singer. From her unpublished autobiography and other interviews over the years there are descriptions and accounts of everyday life in Bialystok. Raisa tutored students in Russian and Yiddish ..."" ) pp. 5-6 in Charles Mintzer, "Rosa Raisa: A Biography of a Diva with Selections from Her Memoirs" (Northeastern University Press: Boston 2001).

Do note that she was a polyglot, but did not even speak Polish. Charles Mintzer then later in the book documents further sources for this conclusion, including her concert programs that included Yiddish and Russian-language songs. She also wrote in Yiddish, Russian cyrillic, and English, and Mr. Mintzer has the documented evidence of her handwritten letters and notes as well.

I understand that you want to resolve this dispute in good faith, but I believe that this fully documented biography, based on the interviews with her close family, her own letters, and Mr. Mintzer's research of several decades, is a better authority on her identity/ethnicity than asking people from the area of her birth who were not even born when she lived there. Please note that she left Bialystok for Italy and then US in 1907, when she was 14 years old, never to return to live there again. I am more than happy to provide the link to this page number of his book after the first sentence about her identity in the Wikipedia article.

Quickly to explain that I just now created my Wiki account in order to report this editing abuse and for this reason my IP address shows on Oliszydlowski talk page and edit history (I did not expect that I would need to create my Wiki account, because I thought that Oliszydlowski would be reasonable when I provided him with the reference). My apologies for this confusion.

Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuserthea (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Wikiuserthea. For the benefit of any talk page watchers, this thread is about a 3RR case concerning the Rosa Raisa article. Anyone interested is encouraged to join the discussion at Talk:Rosa Raisa to resolve the disputed matters. User:Wikiuserthea, you should be making your content arguments there. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Oliszydlowski's flame war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus#Vandalism_for_Rosa_Raisa Instead of providing the facts and evidence for his constant reverts about Raisa's identity, he is now reporting the alleged "vandalism" and lying that I didn't provide any source. I fully documented the book on his talk page earlier this morning. There is no point discussing anything on the Rosa Raisa talk page because this is a farce. This is clearly the case of an obsessed ultranationalist (see his claim that Lithuania should belong to Poland on his Wiki contributor page) and not about the facts concerning one soprano whom he knows absolutely nothing about. Not once did he provide any source or evidence that he knows anything about her life, let alone her identity. Please let this lady rest in peace and tell this man to use someone else for his ultranationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuserthea (talk • contribs) 02:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: You advised to look at Simon Segal page for an example of someone Jewish born in Bialystok in the 1890s for the comparison. Soon after you posted it, Piotrus, who got involved into this issue without any knowledge of Rosa Raisa, immediately changed Simon Segal's identity by inserting "Polish-Jewish". See the timing of his edit of Simon Segal; it was done soon after you had suggested we look at Segal's page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Segal&diff=658929021&oldid=583198045 Other books designated him as "Russian-Jewish" but Piotrus decided to ignore it. See the references in my note to him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piotrus#Your_edit_for_Simon_Segal

This is the tempering that should cast serious doubt on this user's legitimacy to discuss the matter of Rosa Raisa.

Regardless, at Talk:Rosa Raisa I provided full quotations from Raisa's published interviews where she identified herself as a Russian Jew. Also, there is Mr. Mintzer's message to you as well, advising to retain her identity as a "Russian-Jewish" soprano and explaining why. He originally authored the Wikipedia article about Raisa, as well as her published biography.Wikiuserthea (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I think some reminders about WP:AGF and NOTABATTLEGROUND are in order here. I am clearly in favor of a Polish-Russian-Jewish compromise, per the clear no consensus in the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus refuses to acknowledge Rosa Raisa's public expression of her own nationality as "Jewish" AND "Russian," but NOT "Polish", as documented in fully verifiable sources that I quoted on the talk page. She was born and raised in Jewish faith in Bialystok when it was a part of Russia, she left at 14 in 1907 when it was still a part of Russia, and Charles Mintzer provides multiple documented reasons for her sense of nationality as "Russian-Jewish" (NOT "Polish-Russian Jewish" as Piotrus would want to impose on her). Piotrus's "compromise" is between the person's expression of her own nationality and HIS imposition of "Polishness" on that same person who never expressed herself as Polish nor was she ever a Polish citizens. I alerted him that this is in violation of the international law and the UDHR that does not give anyone the right to impose the nationality on someone else. Instead, he as constantly switching the grounds and his new "trick" is to come to you to invoke a "good faith" argument. If anyone is not in good faith, that's him. We looked at the archives yesterday and saw that this is not the first time that he is forming the WP:CABAL with Oliszydlowski in bullying other contributors over the issue of nationality of diseased Jewish people. The definitive source about Rosa Raisa are her own words and expressions of her nationality. There is the public record of it as I quoted it and the rules of the international law on human rights mandate that this must be respected.Wikiuserthea (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The sources that Piotrus is referring to are general books and references that do not discuss Raisa's nationality but simply use the national adjective in the standard sense of the default designation of someone's place of birth. For the places like Bialystok that changed the sovereignty AFTER that person's birth, some sources refer to the country that controlled that area at the time of the person's birth (hence "Riussian") and others refer to the country that controls that area at the time of their own writing (hence "Polish"). Piotrus is fully aware of it and intentionally conflates the adjective references to the origin of her birthplace with the issue of her own nationality for which she publicly expressed to be ONLY "Jewish" and "Russian." According to the international rules on human rights, this should not be compromised as Piotrus and his compatriot Oliszydlowski would want it.Wikiuserthea (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuserthea and Piotrus: How Rosa Raisa preferred to be known is not the final answer on her nationality for purposes of Wikipedia. The above references to UDHR are really beside the point. If you keep on mentioning human rights I have to question the extent of your reading of Wikipedia policies. There is no need for you to talk about BULLYING (in all caps). Wikiuserthea, you should be cautious with behavior that could cause you to be blocked for personal attacks, as on the article talk page. The best guide for how to describe someone's nationality is to review what has been decided in similar cases. Even then, a judgment call may be needed. In any case the place for further discussion is Talk:Rosa Raisa. Use WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. If nationality enters the picture be aware that WP:AC/DS gives admins extra tools for dealing with nationalist disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: Please see Talk:Rosa Raisa for my apology as well as the explanation for using the word "bullying." I do not intend to be a Wikipedia contributor in the future (except for this current edit of Rosa Raisa), but nonetheless tried my best to learn the Wikipedia markup language and policies in this rather short time so to address the issue of Rosa Raisa. Given such a short period to learn it all, I did everything in good faith. For the record, I have no association with either Russian or Polish nationality and no personal stakes in any of this. But I personally know Mr. Mintzer, who spent 40 years of research on Rosa Raisa, as well as my own long-term admiration of her, to get involved in all this after it was pointed to me that Mr. Mintzer's original Wikipedia article has been several times distorted regarding her nationality. I have responded to Piotrus on Talk:Rosa Raisa with the hope toward a final resolution. (BTW, speaking of Wikipedia policies, a couple of years ago, my scholarly book in the completely different area was plagiarized on Wikipedia, but my students warned me about it and they went ahead to correct for it. It now stands corrected thanks to my students.)Wikiuserthea (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an informal advisory

Would this reminder be considered a sufficient reminder for AA2? Or should I just remind that user again more formally? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. You need to use {{ds/alert}}. This is the sole method of notification that will permit future application of discretionary sanctions by admins. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the Old Catholic Church in the United States and associated organisations

In response to our previous discussion I have been doing some online research about the educational programs offered by the Collegium Augustinianum of which the rector is also the primate and archbishop of the Old Catholic Confederation and the Old Catholic Church in the United States (which has no direct connection to any of the historic Old Catholic churches of Europe).

OCCUS and the confederation have the same website address at http://www.occus.org/ The collegium's prospectus is also found on this website at http://www.occus.org/CA%20Prospectus%202014-2015-3.pdf

There are also some comments and questions on the Collegium Augustinium's Wikipedia article's talk page about the physical location of the collegium's two educational institutions by an editor who I have noticed in the past seems to be something of an expert on these "Old Catholic" groups. The editor's comments are found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Collegium_Augustinianum#Locations

I double checked things for myself and was able to confirm that:

1. Its address in Philadelphia is actually the physical location of the Athenaeum of Philadelphia:

2. Its Orlando address is a shared rental office building:

3. The photo of a building on the collegium's prospectus is not of one of their buildings in America. A Google picture search indicates that it is of a country house in France. Although the collegium claims to have been "founded" in Paris it offers no further information about this. It also claims to have an association with the "Institut Catholique Supérieur de Philosophie et de Théologie de Paris" but the only results of an internet search on this name are on the collegium's website and other webpages about the collegium.

I hope this information helps to clarify some of my previous comments. Anglicanus (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's useful information. The discussion at Talk:Collegium Augustinianum is also revealing. We should probably check that the college's article doesn't overstate its legitimacy. Also we should check that the people who are said to be affiliated scholars truly are affiliated. If the faculty have publications, do they state their affiliation to Collegium Augustinianum in their byline? EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah it is clear that CA is virtual. here is there annual report to the State of Florida. They use a corporation agent (see here) which is what many virtual companies do, and yes their office in FL is virtual ( see here). to me none of that is terrible... lots of good entities are virtual today. and their literature hints at it, but doesn't come out and say it clearly. that is a ~bit~ scammy to me. i looked through the recent annual reports of the antheneum in philly 9here) and their website, and found no mention of CA, which is the most weird thing to me of any of this.
and that CA's "prospectus" is on the OCC website.. here is funky.. or again, maybe just cheap and easy for the rector/archbishop. (their degree programs are really, really inexpensive. $6K/year! (from the prospectus, near the end) so it seems unlikely to be a money making scam. seminaries around where i live are $20K/year. really.
it is hard for me to "scam" right now. these are clearly non-mainline religious groups. which are generally poor. and poor and getting by on a shoestring doesn't mean evil.
am right now leaning toward poor and shoestring. but still digging. so interesting!
anglicanus, you seem like a left-wingy religious person... kind of love dorothy day maybe? i do. there is some stuff in the OCC that i think is really attractive.. to heck with the pope and celibate clergy and a lot of the RC baloney...i am not sure there is bad stuff here. i wonder why you are so convinced there is? Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
tax form - apparently formed in 2012. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
incorporated in PA in 2012 yep Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
they trademarked "collegium augustinanium" in 2012 Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
their PR] does say the US college is new but cites the paris one from 1999.. hm on that Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is a bit kooky about de Paulo Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog : Please also read my comments above in a previous section. I have been interested in these "Old Catholic" groups for over 30 years and have come to know quite a lot about them in that time. They are an interesting but also frequently a very disturbing phenomena. A few of them I do in fact have some respect for. But many if not most of them are essentially little more than episcopi vagantes groups which engage in a considerable amount of dishonesty and smoke and mirrors behaviours in order to seem to be an authentic "Catholic church". Some frequent characteristics of them are:
Excessive and inflated information on how legitimate they are, including:
  • An emphasis on asserting the validity of their ordinations through various lines of episcopal ordinations back to the Roman Catholic Church (or, sometimes, one of the Orthodox churches), usually via one or more characters such as Arnold Mathew or Rene Vilatte.
  • Having grand sounding titles for their bishops, such as "Archbishop of the United States".
  • An emphasis on memberships in chivalric orders, often bogus ones which they have created themselves.
(I may add to this list later.)
What I would say about the "Old Catholic Church in the United States" and its associated organisations is that they manage to present themselves as looking much more legitimate than they actually are. Some very professional looking websites (with some impressive looking photos). Lots of inflated claims about their "renowned faculty" and suggestions that they have some kind of formal association with "prestigious" educational institutions in Europe such as Oxford University (which, in reality, does not seem much more than having some library rights at them). Impressive sounding claims to have conferred honorary doctorates on some prominent theologians (who probably in my view were not aware of the true nature and status of the collegium). The use of some very nice looking church and other buildings for their liturgies and academic ceremonies which actually belong to other churches and organisations. To me all of this indicates a clear intention to seem impressive at the expense of honesty and transparency. Anglicanus (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so crazy and interesting! but do they hurt people somehow? Jytdog (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my view yes, at least financially if not in other ways, if they are misrepresenting themselves. If they are being honest and transparent about themselves then not so much. But my opinion on this is already known. (If we are going to continue this discussion we should probably move it off Ed's talk page unless he wants to stay involved in it.) Anglicanus (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone following this thread should take note of WP:Articles for deletion/Collegium Augustinianum, an AfD opened by User:Jytdog. That could be a place to reach agreement on notability and to verify that the article's references are reliable enough for Wikipedia purposes. If the college turns out not to be notable then it would save us the burden of verifying all the facts offered in the article. The fairly surprising claims in the current article, the use of questionable photos, and college's claim to be located in a state (Florida) where it apparently has no physical presence do raise eyebrows. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles have been significantly trimmed by Dianaa today. Apparently, there were copyright violations. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need an experienced user's opinion

This article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading) is being considered for deletion. It is about a nationally charting album and we need a well-placed opinion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:48, 25 April 2015

OhC AE

Hi Ed. Once again, User:Lowercase sigmabot III has archived the Ohconfucius AE discussion, even though the case hasn't been resolved. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to say the same. And also to note that I responded to your question here. Let me know if there's anything else.
p.s., I hope some action is taken to permanently delete that essay, an archive of which OhConfucius is still promoting on his user page. I'm not upset about it personally, but it doesn't seem right that someone should be able to accuse other editors of being SPAs and sockpuppets with impunity, especially on a subject where they have a history of sanctions against them. This is pretty clearly a violation of Wikipedia's conduct policies against personal attacks, IMO.TheBlueCanoe 13:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I added that very quickly this morning, copying from Roger Davies page, and noticed there were problems. But, I was off to a bread-making course and didn't have time to fix it. I was very pleased to find that you'd taken care of it in my absence! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Risala Ramadahaniyyah Dhow'o Nooril Haqqil Mubeen
  2. ^ https://lockerdome.com/dnaindia.com/7602973320822292
  3. ^ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1993/10/enacted
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=659407995"