Jump to content

Talk:Carolinda Witt

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

Possible promotional material

[edit]

This article appears to have possibly been created in order to promote the work of an author who has written material pertaing to the Five Tibetan Rites. Similar editing has also occured periodically in the Five Rites article. The article does not seem appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia in it's current state and needs additional references. Thanks, and no offense is intended so please don't be. 71.206.170.238 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No offense is taken. I did not put this page up, but I have recently edited it - including adding links to external sources & references. Some of these refer to T5T which I have subsequently removed as this is considered 'promotion' - although Wikipedia is littered with links to articles about author's works. So I'm confused as to what constitutes what, and as a beginner have decided to remove the 'offending' links until I have gained more experience and can define the differences. However I have left the links that relate to various health modalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.251.152 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (124.168.251.152 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]


I've done some checking on Wikipedia's rules and from what I can gather the links I put in are verifiable, reliable sources, neutral viewpoints and I have therefore re-instated them. As a published author by Random House and Penguin Books, these publishers and their links to those books are included. There are also articles by respected magazine "Natural Health" and journalists. Carolinda is therefore a recognized expert on The Five Tibetan Rites according to the definitions as provided by Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia's notes below:

Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Reliable Source Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.251.152 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC) (124.168.251.152 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Listed are all the sources mentioned above:

Author and books interviewed or reviewed (direct links to articles are no longer displayed on internet but the full articles have been scanned from the hard copy and can can be viewed at http://www.t5t.com/media.cfm?Content_ID=105

  • Vogue Australia 2005
  • Qantas In-Flight Magazine Feb 2006
  • Slimming & Health Magazine May 06
  • Family Circle Magazine Dec 05
  • Who Magazine Dec 05
  • Gulf News Friday Magazine - July 07
  • Yoga in Australia Survey Oct 05

(124.168.251.152 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia policies and guidlines

[edit]

Here are some links which you may find helpful as you familiarize yourself with editing policies and guidlines. I refer to them often. I think these are the most useful and important ones but there are many others. I also fixed the article as there was a missing reference tag causing an error and the page to display incorrectly. I'm no expert on biographical articles but it seems to me that more references are needed in the article. The Introduction as well as the sections "Early Years", "Ballooning History", The Five Tibetan Teaching Rites History" and "Ballooning Highlights" have no references at all. This may come back to haunt you as other editors find the article. If you want the article to remain, I think it needs a bit more work before some of the "hard core" editors come across it. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable.Good luck!

71.206.170.238 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thank you very much for the links above. Clearly you are much more experienced on Wikipedia than I. I have some questions which I would really appreciate an answer on. Please as you read them, do not take offense for this is not intended in anyway. I am having difficulty with what I see are double or questionable standards. If you put the shoes on the other foot when reading them, you will see that they are genuine questions. I am trying through the limit of the written word to convey my confusion and questions without sounding righteous (which I certainly don't feel). If in reading the below you feel confronted in anyway, please accept my apologies in advance.

Leveling the Same Playing Field

It is fortunate for you that you know who I am and have made it clear to all on Wikipedia by addressing me personally. Personal privacy is extremely important in this day and age, and as a person passionate about Wikipedia, I am questioning your motive as to why you would address me personally rather than by IP address? On the other hand, you have retained your anonymity and therefore your motives or objectives can not be ascertained. For example - do you have a commercial or vested interest in The Five Tibetans? There have been numerous internet marketers selling a downloadable version of the out of copyright "Eye of Revelation" booklet adding external links and references over the last few years. Are you one of them? If so, I believe you should declare it and level the playing field. So, the question is asked: "What is your interest commercially or philosophically in the Five Tibetan Rites?"

A Double Bind or 2

  • 1. I did not create this page, although I was asked questions pertaining to references and some data checking. So, how do I clear up the written supposition in this Talk Page which reflects badly on my credibility? If anyone can say anything they want - how does this get righted/retracted?
  • 2. On the same matter as above, it is an assumption to convey to all on Wikipedia that I only have a commercial reason for quoting verifiable references that include information pertaining to 'my methods or tips in teaching the Rites'. Having spent years as a practitioner and teacher, I've actually made them safer and easier for a far greater range of people than currently existed ever before. I don't insist on people learning my way, they find me because they need more in-depth information or because they have developed neck or back pain (a certain percentage of people do - not everyone). With other qualified health practitioners we have found ways to protect their precious spines over the long term. There are many, many people who benefit from this information and by continuing to remove all my references, you are preventing them from getting access to this information. I'm guessing you haven't read or viewed any of my material - correct? If you had you would see that the books and DVD are a manual on "How To Do The Five Tibetans" - not some other program! I call it T5T to distinguish the step-by-step strength & flexibility development so that people have a choice of learning the Rites by this method. Please provide a delivery address and I will send you a book and a DVD so review so you can see for yourself.
  • 3. How can I cite verifiable, notable & neutral view references when you keep deleting them on this page and on The Five Tibetans Page? Rather a catch 22 wouldn't you agree? Please see the references above.
  • 4. Since I became a pilot long before the advent of the internet, how can I produce digital references that don't exist? I can upload scanned material from books or newspapers, but is that allowed or will this be seen as self-promotion? It seems I am in a catch 22 here wouldn't you agree?
  • 5. The page on The Five Tibetans is titled "Five Tibetan Rites" - not "Peter Kelder's booklet". There are several of us who have recently significantly contributed to either knowledge about the history or lineage of the Rites like Jerry Watt and Ryan Parker - and my contribution into 'How To Do The Rites' that I have gleaned over years of teaching thousands of students.

Chris Kilham who is widely quoted on the page - is a living author who derives commercial benefit from his books. Why is he so different to me or Jerry Watt? You see the double standard here?

Yoga began with a simple sitting posture and evolved into the thousands of postures we say today. The Rites cannot remain static, nothing does. I therefore propose that this whole page needs to be designed with Current Material that is not deleted the moment it gets up there. In this way, the playing field is the same for everyone and still remains absolutely correct in encyclopedic definitions. Published books and articles are verifiable & notable. The fact that the authors benefit commercially because they happen to be alive is unavoidable. A clear representation of the past and current status of The Five Tibetan Rites is a more accurate representation that currently is being 'allowed' on the page.

What are your views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.77.116 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen editors address others editors by name on Wikipedia. This does not make it acceptable, however. You are correct on the issue of anonymity and I should have thought about that beforehand. I make mistakes as do others and I am still learning. Apologies. I have no vested interest in The Five Rites whatsoever other than I've been fascinated with them since I first discovered them in 1985. That's it. Nothing more. I edit Wikipedia for the same reasons everyone else does; it's interesting and fun. I do my best to abide by Wikipedia Guidlines and Policies, but it's definitely a lot to keep track of. As far as producing digital references that don't exist; I have no answer for that. As I've already mentioned, I'm not that familiar with policies as they pertain to biographical articles. Perhaps the policies for references aren't as rigid here, although I suspect that they likely are. From what I do know, Wikipedia states that verifialbilty is very important and most editors adhere to this pretty rigidly. You are also correct that the Five Rites article is about the Rites, not just the booklet, and Wikipedia does state that articles should remain up to date. Feel free to add back in the T5T content and I will not revert it. Most editors here are pretty savy and keep a sharp eye out for SPAM, self promotion, etc., so keep that in mind when making edits so that it doesn't appear that way to others. The bottom line is that all articles strive to be encyclopedic and abide by the five pillars. Wikipedia also states that anyone can edit and to be BOLD. Obviously, when huge numbers of people contribute to the same information base, there will be disagreements. Being BOLD can easily be misinterpreted and it can and does result in editors taking offense. That is what the talk page is for; to discuss the article and come to a consensus. So be BOLD, but don't be surprised if others challenge you. I've had edits which I felt contributed greatly to articles completely eradicated on more than one occasion. But this is part of the process so that Wikipedia can evolve. Also, you have not offended me in any way. However, I do feel badly knowing that I may have caused you any distress. That was NEVER my intention. Additionally, I suspect that the author of T5T is very well respected for the work she has done. Best wishes to you.71.206.170.238 (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you so much for writing the above. I have learned a lot from this. Don't feel badly, it is just good to have finally sorted it out - particularly amicably. Thank you. For the record I have taught over a thousand people personally and many thousand more through books, DVD's and the workshops by Registered Instructors also run. The fact that one of them wants to write a Wikipedia Page on me, does not constitute self-promotion. The most likely person to write anything about the work of any teacher is most probably going to be a student. If my student has placed material in such a way as it looks like self-promotion - there's nothing I can do about it since I have learned that I cannot edit my own page - which I did not understand before. For this I apologize and won't do again. I made the same mistake as I'm sure many people do - by leeping in and editing before wading through the very complex rules (to me) that are Wikipedia. Being an editor is almost a full-time job! With regard to your interest in the Rites - I cannot recommend them more highly! All the best & thanks for teaching a Wiki rookie some great tips and links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.28.147 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carolinda_Witt&oldid=1209171383"