Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 23 July 2010 (→Primus Telecommunications: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page–my talk page–as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Thank you!

Click here to leave me a new message.

Click here to watch this page.

Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin

I noticed you did a bit of work on Jean Eugène Robert-Houdin. I recently reverted some vandalism from a year ago, but the resulting section doesn't integrate that well with what is there. I've noted this here, but am looking for someone who might have time to fix this (if I can't find anyone, I'll move the rescued section to the talk page). Would you be interested in having a look? Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I've looked at the history, and your changes in particular. I saw only one line of vandalism and the deletion of some text. Your changes look perfect to me. Please be more specific about "...needs work to reintegrate it into the article," because I have no idea what the problem is. The original text (which was restored by your changes) looks fine to me. I agree that many of the statements need sourcing, but I don't have the requisite knowledge to know what the sources might be. In this case, I wouldn't trust Web searches to turn up good sources. Physical books would more likely contain reliable information. I'm sure the article as it stands contains minor errors and is incomplete, but that's the nature of WP--it's always improving. David Spector (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure at least one other person thought it was OK, as it felt a bit strange to be restoring a section from a year ago. Thanks for looking. Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I wrote that section, and the deletion was apparently done with no discussion, and you have some reservation about the section as it stands, someone else should be asked to review it. I don't know the WP mechanism for doing this. David Spector (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote that section? We might be misunderstanding each other here. The wording of parts of that section is present in very early versions of the article, dating back 7 years. See here for example (that is the fifth edit to the article, in 2003). My concern is that the section was removed by a vandal and was missing for a year. The article was extensively edited during that year, so re-adding the section as I have done felt wrong, so I was hoping someone could take the missing section and integrate with the work done over the past year (which seems to have been a mixture of people). Still, I'll copy this to the article talk page and ask someone else to look at it (the editor from 2003 is still here, for example) if you think that is best. Apologies for any misunderstandings. Carcharoth (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the misunderstanding was mine. I probably didn't look closely enough at the edits. Since my time is currently limited, go ahead and ask someone else. Thanks for your attention to this. David Spector (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

TM and Hinduism

• One minor correction to "It is so clear that the current editors (the majority of them anyway) have the fixed agenda to present TM as a pseudo science..." I believe only two of the current editors have this POV (judging from this Talk page; the others left months ago). Their relatively uninformed POV, relying as it does on sources (like the otherwise wonderful Carl Sagan) who express authoritative-sounding opinions that are not based on a deep understanding of the subject matter, irritates me as well.

I assume you include me in the unnamed "current editors" you refer to in that comment. I have argued to retain the very short comment by Sagan because it's a significant point of view. However I've searched the archives of the talk page and cannot find any occasion in which I've expressed an opinion on the matter itself. If I've overlooked some place where I've said something directly about the connection of TM and Hinduism then I can't find it. Can you? Which of us is wrong?   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm wrong. I'm so used to you opposing anything the pro-TMers do that I assumed you'd agree that TM is Hinduism and pseudoscience (as if anything can be both!). WP works, but it is quite counterintuitive as to how, since it so firmly prefers ad hominem (famous people as reliable sources outside of their specialty--as if!) over truth. David Spector (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Primus Telecommunications

I only know what I read, and what I read is that Primus is a TMM-associated company. Here's its offices in Fairfield. Google "Primus Telecommunications" and "Maharishi" or "Transcendental Meditation" if you want more sources. There's lots of them. Fladrif (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's more than one company with the same name? This one's in Canada. But it does seem a strange coincidence, being that this person seems to have TMM expertise. David Spector (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the same company. They bought out Telegroup, which was co-founded by Fred Gratzon, and apparently still have strong ties to Fairfield.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)