This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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))
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))
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))
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
( 124.168.251.152 ( talk) 06:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC))
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)
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
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)