Misplaced Pages

Talk:Religion and schizotypy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:36, 7 August 2005 editKetrovin (talk | contribs)91 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 11:50, 7 August 2005 edit undoEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,209 edits pasted from vfdNext edit →
Line 70: Line 70:


I thought perhaps that it would be a nice way to begin my stay at this site, by doing something nice for people, this article is by no means finished, and i still have a lot of work to doon it. Please do not delete it, the base of the article was all i was putting down for starters, I find it odd about how rude and subesquently accusitory DreamGuy has been about this matter. Having read the good faith policey article, i beleive that DreamGuy has violated this in his dealings with me and has served no purpose but as a rabble rouser on an issue that has, so far tried to rob me of my sense of self. I have said my piece, .] 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC) I thought perhaps that it would be a nice way to begin my stay at this site, by doing something nice for people, this article is by no means finished, and i still have a lot of work to doon it. Please do not delete it, the base of the article was all i was putting down for starters, I find it odd about how rude and subesquently accusitory DreamGuy has been about this matter. Having read the good faith policey article, i beleive that DreamGuy has violated this in his dealings with me and has served no purpose but as a rabble rouser on an issue that has, so far tried to rob me of my sense of self. I have said my piece, .] 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

==Deletion debate==
----
Moved from vfd
----
===]===

*This is such a small amount of information that it should be merged into another article. Forcing everyone to wait around a week, and to VOTE on it is stupid and anti-wiki.
*People should simply make suggestions on the talk page '''as usual''' and make edits and merges '''as usual'''
*It is asinine to generate 5 times more discussion than the amount of text involved here.

So I'm going to cut and paste the contents of this page to ]. ] 11:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)




This totally non-notable page is likley to be little more than an paean against religion. ] 01:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - sounds like the article could do with expansion though. ] 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - this article is a work in progress. by the by, is ] a sockpuppet of DreamGuy? his workings almost EXACTLY DreamGuy's style. ] 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' No, he's not, and no the style isn't even close (for example, this article is clearly not against religion, it was put there so you could rant against psychiatrists, per your conversations on ] and ], among others), and you are one to talk about sockpuppets, having written the article in question under one. ] 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
::Which is now proven beyond a doubt, see ]'s block. ] 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep''' - this acrticle could use some reworking, but its not non notable.</s> ] 02:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' Considering the prevalence of sockpuppets on articles Gabrielsimon has been fighting over lately, I will have to call upon the official ] policy and point out that this person doesn't come close to the 100 edits one needs to verify oneself as an actual real person and would note that the edits he/she does have are extremely suspicious, jumping into articles closely related to ones Gabrielsimon worked on but that aren't otherwise related. ] 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
::Khulhy is now ] of Gabrielsimon. ] 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Could be a great article soon. ] 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - As described by ] on the discussion page, "I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were." Also, singling out schizotypy as a specific disorder to mention in the title is really quite odd as it's just one minor classification out of a whole range that would be important for a comparison between religion and psychology in general or mental disorders more specifically. If the article stayed around waiting for cleanup it would just get redirectede to a real article on the topic under a better name, and this title is so specific it's really unnecessary as a redirect as nobody would think to go looking for it instead of, say, ] or ] or whatnot. This article is a completely unsalvagable mess. ] 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
:Comment--your outnumbered, dreamguy. guess that means consensus will be keep.] 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Concur with DreamGuy. <font color="green">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> 02:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with ]. Seems NPOV to me, not a ] (or, more correctly, a ]) against or for anything. But could easily be put inside a larger article, no need to break-out everything. ] 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' with schizophrenia or into an article about religion and psychology. &mdash; ] 03:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*:... I didnt gdo anything that last time...] 03:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. POV personal essay, no sources, strange title, unencyclopedic. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Sorry. ] 04:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- The topic is valid, apply improvement tag as needed. ] 04:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' -- ]
*'''Delete''' I'm sorry to see things go down this way, but I see little salvagable here. ] 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Hopelessly POV, and unnecessary. An article on all mental illness and religion? Maybe. This? No. ] 05:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The article as it stands is close to being ]. A new article with a tighter and more technical focus could work, but scrap this one. ] ] 10:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
**It ''is'' possible to change an article without deleting it ... &mdash; ] 11:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
:*But realistically, is anyone going to in the near future? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. - ] 11:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:50, 7 August 2005

This article has nothing to do with my point of view on mattwers, just to tell anyone whos interested, i saw a request on a user page for an articl;e such as this so i made the preliminary version. Ketrovin 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This page was created as a gift for Vashti, hopefully he can make it better too. Ketrovin 19:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an incomprehenisble muddle and has a bizarre title. Odds are good there is something we can redirect this to, otherwise an actual article should be created elsewhere. DreamGuy 22:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am truely srory if you dont like it, but Simply becasue you do not like it does not make it worthless. have a nice day. Ketrovin 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some editors may look at this and assume this article only exists to push an anti-religion POV. Thus, it's probably important that it get NPOV'd quickly. For starters, I bet we can't get away with saying things like "there are those who believe" in an article like this. Using actual quotes from actual experts is probably neccessary here. Friday 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it can be NPOVed quickly... It just seems like a rather random soapbox thing. Do we have another religion and psychology article here somewhere we can redirect to? Singling schizotypy out out of all the classifications seems rather bizarre. DreamGuy 23:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

you do it often enough, even ifits notyour article, that makesyou seem like a hiopocrite. ( my last edit here for two weeks) Gabrielsimon 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe any article belongs to any editor. We don't own things personally here; this is a group effort. Friday 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were. SlimVirgin 23:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Do I hear a call for a VfD? I'd support there being a vote. DreamGuy 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dreamguy and others drove Ketrovn to leave wikipedia, by pestering him all day, which was his forst day. i say keep the a rticle and expand it, and make it someting lasting. Gabrielsimon 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"He" didn't leave Misplaced Pages, you just went back to posting under your own name because so many people spotted the sock. DreamGuy 00:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

he left and your still an asshole. just shut up. Gabrielsimon 00:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, the personal attacks have to stop. As for the article, we can either put it up for a VfD, or if everyone on this page agrees it should be deleted, I can do it as a speedy. SlimVirgin 00:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy would be nice, but Gabriel has already objected to deletion... Unless you can convince him otherwise. DreamGuy 00:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with speedy. Perhaps something on this topic can be written, but what's here isn't much help. Friday 00:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

i beleive the subject matter has merit, and so i would suggest getting religious and phys cological experts, who arent dreamguy ( becaxue we both know he says his expertise is mythology) to take a look and improove t his articel. it was only one of ketrovins two attempts at adding to this place before he was driven off. so i say we keep it. Gabrielsimon 00:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, would you be prepared to put this article on your user subpage and work on it in there until it's ready to go in the encyclopedia? It needs a few changes in my view before it's a proper stub. For example, you might want to rethink the title. Calling it "Religion and schizotypy" is restrictive, and schizotypy is a disputed psychiatric term. It also needs sources, so you'd have to find credible published sources who said that religion was a sign or consequence of mental illness. It doesn't need a lot, just some tidying along those lines, in order to make it a proper stub. What do you think? SlimVirgin 01:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


would that guy who was shouting to a lion " jesus will save you" when he tried to put a feather boa on its neck., and got himself killed be a decent source for mental illness? Gabrielsimon 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Not in and of itself, but several good sources are available by Googling 'religion schizophrenia'. ~~ N (t/c) 01:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

research

This page stems from a comment on my user page stating that I thought such a page might be necessary and workable. There is a sizeable chunk of published research that studies the purported relationship between religiosity and schizotypal traits, mostly by Diduca and Joseph; one of the things on my heap has been tracking down those papers to see if I could work them into an article on the topic. This page is not quite what I had in mind. :) Vashti 10:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


I am inclined to agree that such an article might be of value. For example, there is the case of an American man named Joel Hanson, whose case is documented in his parents' (Dan and Sue Hanson) book Room for J. He has been diagnosed as schitzophrenic, believes he is God incarnate, and has written a book which might be very easily construed as "holy scripture," called "J's Guide to the Universe." This cased was discussed extensively on the American radio program "Speaking of Faith," and information on the episode and Joel Hanson may be found at the program's web site. The similarities between this case and any number of past religious figures who have considered themselves God or God's messenger on Earth are obvious.
Hovever, it is also very clear that this article needs to rise to a much higher standard before it can be suitable. Note the very first sentence, which opens with the weasel words "there are those who..." That sets the tone for everything that follows: a soapbox speech disguised as objective inquiry.--Craigkbryant 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


looks like it was sopmeones second try at making an article, so the way it is should be forgiven. Gabrielsimon 22:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


It's not a question of "forgiving." The article, as written, has certain shortcomings. We are discussing ways of overcoming them. The question is whether anyone wants to invest the time in making this a quality, neutral, encyclopedia-grade article, by investing time, doing research, citing sources, and generally striving for excellence. As is, this article is a POV source spouting undocumented opinion. Gabriel, are you interested in putting the work into this article that it needs? I would be happy to give you any advice that I can. --Craigkbryant 23:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

certainly i would, but theres still a lot of trouble in other parts of my wiki career, such as someone with a vendetta against me, trying to get me banned, but thats unimporant. Gabrielsimon 00:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought perhaps that it would be a nice way to begin my stay at this site, by doing something nice for people, this article is by no means finished, and i still have a lot of work to doon it. Please do not delete it, the base of the article was all i was putting down for starters, I find it odd about how rude and subesquently accusitory DreamGuy has been about this matter. Having read the good faith policey article, i beleive that DreamGuy has violated this in his dealings with me and has served no purpose but as a rabble rouser on an issue that has, so far tried to rob me of my sense of self. I have said my piece, .Ketrovin 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion debate

Moved from vfd

Religion and schizotypy

  • This is such a small amount of information that it should be merged into another article. Forcing everyone to wait around a week, and to VOTE on it is stupid and anti-wiki.
  • People should simply make suggestions on the talk page as usual and make edits and merges as usual
  • It is asinine to generate 5 times more discussion than the amount of text involved here.

So I'm going to cut and paste the contents of this page to talk:Religion and schizotypy. Uncle Ed 11:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)



This totally non-notable page is likley to be little more than an paean against religion. Hipocrite 01:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, he's not, and no the style isn't even close (for example, this article is clearly not against religion, it was put there so you could rant against psychiatrists, per your conversations on Talk:Otherkin and Talk:Therianthropy, among others), and you are one to talk about sockpuppets, having written the article in question under one. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Which is now proven beyond a doubt, see User:Ketrovin's block. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Considering the prevalence of sockpuppets on articles Gabrielsimon has been fighting over lately, I will have to call upon the official Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppets policy and point out that this person doesn't come close to the 100 edits one needs to verify oneself as an actual real person and would note that the edits he/she does have are extremely suspicious, jumping into articles closely related to ones Gabrielsimon worked on but that aren't otherwise related. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Khulhy is now proven as sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon. DreamGuy 07:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Could be a great article soon. CanadianCaesar 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As described by User:SlimVirgin on the discussion page, "I can see there being a good article on religion and mental illness, but as this page stands, it's POV, unencyclopedic in the style it's written, and it has no sources. My suggestion is that it be deleted, and the creator (or someone else) puts it on a user subpage and works on it there, until it's ready to face the public, as it were." Also, singling out schizotypy as a specific disorder to mention in the title is really quite odd as it's just one minor classification out of a whole range that would be important for a comparison between religion and psychology in general or mental disorders more specifically. If the article stayed around waiting for cleanup it would just get redirectede to a real article on the topic under a better name, and this title is so specific it's really unnecessary as a redirect as nobody would think to go looking for it instead of, say, Religion and psychology or Religion and mental disorders or whatnot. This article is a completely unsalvagable mess. DreamGuy 02:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Comment--your outnumbered, dreamguy. guess that means consensus will be keep.Gabrielsimon 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • But realistically, is anyone going to in the near future? SlimVirgin 11:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - grubber 11:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)