Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:05, 21 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)

Rob you of your sense of self? You are a proven sockpuppet of Gabriel's, you have no sense of self. Geez, what melodramatic twaddle. DreamGuy 12:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The VfD of 7 August, 2005

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August, 2005. The result of the vote was keep. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

How does 7 Keep votes, 16 Delete votes and a bunch of Merge votes get counted as a vote to Keep? There's a clear supermajority to get rid of it, and even with the merge votes taken out Keep is still less than half of the votes to get rid of it?

I really do not understand how some admins count these things, because we can have far and away more votes to get rid of something and still someone will come along and claim that the vote was for the exact opposite of what it really was. DreamGuy 20:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

--The admin who finalized the VfD evidently rejected 4 delete votes because he thought they might be sockpuppets or were "new" users. He did not specify which votes he rejected. I don't really know if this is in keeping with precedent or not. In any event, as a fairly new user, I am personally a bit upset by this decision, and in particular, not knowing whether my vote was counted or not. (If I'm not qualified to participate in VfD's, I should stop wasting my time on them...) I am planning to ask for some clarification, and a better understanding of what constitutes the "rough consensus" for a deletion. Two thirds?

In any event, the default position in a VfD is "Keep." The admin declared that, with 12 votes to delete, 7 to keep and 2 to merge, no consensus to delete had been achieved, so the article stays in place by default.--Craigkbryant 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The official Misplaced Pages:deletion policy is, as I understand it, that the question in a VfD should be "Is there any point to having anything, an article, a redirect, a blank page, here at all?", rather than "Is the present text any good?" Not everybody does this; that's one reason there are so many VfD nominations. For more, see Misplaced Pages: deletion reform.

But it follows from this, that merge equals "move the content (or some of it) to another article; and keep a redirect to that article." Likewise Redirect is keep a redirect here. In this sense, the vote was 12 to 9 to delete, to expunge entirely and throw out the history - which is not Misplaced Pages:consensus.

Throwing out sock-puppets is necessary; otherwise some editors would vote a hundred times to keep their favorite article. "New users", in this context, usually means accounts created since the beginning of the VfD, who are ignored on the grounds that they are, all too often, sock-puppets. (Unfair to those who aren't; but it does take a short time to become used to Misplaced Pages and see what our unwritten conventions are.) Septentrionalis 15:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am religious.

Nevertheless, I find that this more or less accurately describes the logical fallacy atheists use to attack my Faith on an ever constant basis. Therefore, do not delete it but probably rename it and please do cite sources. Reject 05:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Rob you of your sense of self? You are a proven sockpuppet of Gabriel's, you have no sense of self. Geez, what melodramatic twaddle. DreamGuy 12:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The VfD of 7 August, 2005

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 August, 2005. The result of the vote was keep. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

How does 7 Keep votes, 16 Delete votes and a bunch of Merge votes get counted as a vote to Keep? There's a clear supermajority to get rid of it, and even with the merge votes taken out Keep is still less than half of the votes to get rid of it?

I really do not understand how some admins count these things, because we can have far and away more votes to get rid of something and still someone will come along and claim that the vote was for the exact opposite of what it really was. DreamGuy 20:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

--The admin who finalized the VfD evidently rejected 4 delete votes because he thought they might be sockpuppets or were "new" users. He did not specify which votes he rejected. I don't really know if this is in keeping with precedent or not. In any event, as a fairly new user, I am personally a bit upset by this decision, and in particular, not knowing whether my vote was counted or not. (If I'm not qualified to participate in VfD's, I should stop wasting my time on them...) I am planning to ask for some clarification, and a better understanding of what constitutes the "rough consensus" for a deletion. Two thirds?

In any event, the default position in a VfD is "Keep." The admin declared that, with 12 votes to delete, 7 to keep and 2 to merge, no consensus to delete had been achieved, so the article stays in place by default.--Craigkbryant 21:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The official Misplaced Pages:deletion policy is, as I understand it, that the question in a VfD should be "Is there any point to having anything, an article, a redirect, a blank page, here at all?", rather than "Is the present text any good?" Not everybody does this; that's one reason there are so many VfD nominations. For more, see Misplaced Pages: deletion reform.

But it follows from this, that merge equals "move the content (or some of it) to another article; and keep a redirect to that article." Likewise Redirect is keep a redirect here. In this sense, the vote was 12 to 9 to delete, to expunge entirely and throw out the history - which is not Misplaced Pages:consensus.

Throwing out sock-puppets is necessary; otherwise some editors would vote a hundred times to keep their favorite article. "New users", in this context, usually means accounts created since the beginning of the VfD, who are ignored on the grounds that they are, all too often, sock-puppets. (Unfair to those who aren't; but it does take a short time to become used to Misplaced Pages and see what our unwritten conventions are.) Septentrionalis 15:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I am religious.

Nevertheless, I find that this more or less accurately describes the logical fallacy atheists use to attack my Faith on an ever constant basis. Therefore, do not delete it but probably rename it and please do cite sources. Reject 05:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving the page/redirects

Trodel, stop moving the page just because you don't like it. It's disruptive.

First off, I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. I am merely interested in implementing properly the result of the VfD, which was adjudged by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) to be keep because of no consensus.

Redirecting this to Psychology of religion is not useful because then the content disappears, which is effectively the same as deleting it (albeit with history preserved), and that's an end run around the no consensus/keep result.

Naming this to Psychology Attacks on Religion is problematic as well because firstly as an article name it doesn't make much grammatical sense. A title that can be parsed properly would be "Attacks on religion in Psychology", but the problem with that is that the word "attack" is not NPOV. A secondary problem with the moving was of course that the capitalisation of Attacks and Religion were against naming conventions.

I would suggest that this article be edited to provide the citations asked for therein, or else to be left with the notices up so that people know that this article is problematic. Once the problems are fixed, if the article is short enough, it should then be properly merged with Psychology of religion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:03, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

As an addendum, if people want this page deleted, wait a reasonable period, then put it up for VfD again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)