Repression is when someone else subdues (someone or something) by force as in the uprisings were repressed.
- Restrain or prevent (the expression of a feeling): Isabel couldn't repress a sharp cry of fear.
- Suppress (a thought, feeling, or desire) in oneself so that it becomes or remains unconscious : the thought that he had killed his brother was so terrible that he repressed it.
- inhibit the natural development or self-expression of (someone or something): too much bureaucracy represses creativity.
- Biology: to prevent the transcription of (a gene).
(definitions by Oxford Dictionary)
A fine example is the repression by ISKCON-BBT-members of filognosy vaishnavas Anand Aadhar and Sakhya Devi dasi at the wikipedia discussion page for the Bhâgavatam: there was a large scale discussion after accusing bhagavata.org of using copyrighted material. The 'abuse' was something inevitable as it is the method commanded by Swami Prabhupâda to use his work on the previous versions and the Sanskrit. Also pictures to the text were commanded by him. Also should be remembered in this discussion that, according vaishnav culture, no one has the right to claim the fruits of devotional service as Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gîtâ 2.47
The accusation and initial repression of the links to bhagavata.org:
The discussion that was repressed with the message that it was largely irrelevant, while leaving the accusations:
Response from the "Pirate"
The version of the bhâgavata purâna at http://bhagavata.org bhagavata.org and http://bhagavata.net bhagavata.net is part of the distribution policy of the Bhâgavatam of a http://bhagavata.net select company of elderly ISKCON devotees in the Netherlands]. It is offered to and appreciated by his holiness http://www.kkswami.com/ Sri Kadamba Kanana Swami, the official ISKCON sannyâsi and representative in the Netherlands and may, by those unaware of this, according vaishnava? etiquette not be excluded, brought down, degraded, compromised, repressed or discriminated as is ignorantly depicted above. It is the only full version of the holy book in the Dutch language, there is no other one. Excluding this would discriminate the 10.000 visitors the book has each week on the internet. Anand Aadhar as such may be considered the successor (by his widow blessed) of Sri Hayeshvar das, who before him took care of the still used and distributed translations of Prabhupâda's? works in the Dutch language. There was an ISKCON fray about him too with false abusive devotees claiming Prabhupâda's? authority. They opposing this core service in Holland, all blooped and fell down, including the sannyâsis associated with the offense; and so it happend with the critics of Aadhar. The writer of the above comment is surely no reliable, wise, aware or conscious representative of the ISKCON interest, since he campaigns against what ISKCON devotees in Holland need, do and use since the earliest days of the Krishna? mission in the Netherlands. The honor of Prabhupâda? is by these devotees in Holland not harmed or compromised but rather defended. The work, the daring task of progressing with the Bhâgavatam, continues, and has to continue. We are never done with this book. They who claim a one-line fixation of the book are ignorant of Lord Caitanya's? defense of the 61 versions of the so-called âtmârâma-verse. The version in English is offered in courtesy so that one may know in what sense Krishna? in the philosophical and free-thinker, reform-minded realm of Holland is progressing in taking up the karma?. This policy followed is national dharma?. Let not ignorance, false ego and possessiveness prevail in this holy enterpise of the Reformer that is Lord Caitanaya?! We after all have free press and fight against the 'I and mine' demon so rampant in the western world. Copyright-claims over the works do, on top of that, in this case, not hold since: <Br>
- 1) the ISKCON-texts are used quote by quote and not as a running text; of each page the length of the purports has not been copied. So there is no question of copying entire texts as O Govinda suggests; it is thus fair use and no violation. The images are copyright of the separate devotees of whom none objected to our knowledge. The permission BBT has to use them in their publications gives no exclusive right over them what so ever. All the world uses them by the way in books, on t-shirts, websites and whatever; it is holy material offered in devotion to the Lord and, scripturally, no one may claim ownership as BBT tries to. <Br>
- 2) for any one working at the Bhâgavatam it is the formally prescribed method to refer to the Sanskrit and paramparâ? source before presenting his own realization, <Br>
- 3) it is ISKCON itself using in Holland - be it informally, for things are not definite - the dutch materials, the texts and the music of the site in their distribution, for necessity is command, what else can they do to be complete vi-bhagavit?<Br>
- 4) all money raised by the distribution, in CD-rom format as yet, of this version of the book, directly benefitted ISKCON, and indeed not BBT- the problem thus. Anand Aadhar never touched one penny for himself, invested all donations he received himself in the project, and has as yet paid for all costs of the project himself without demanding or receiving any financial support from ISKCON.
Thus, in conclusion, sorry, we can't yield to this formalist repression of ignorant and blinded commercialist? socalled 'leaders and representatives' of ISKCON compromising sincere followers, believers and acclaimed devotees. There is, after all, no other way of progressing with Krishna but by taking up the work. Anyone following the paramparâ? method of reference as so exemplary is respected by Aadhar, can do exactly the same, since it is Prabhupâda? who commanded it as the way of the devotee. We have to continue this way and not all be losers in square nihilism cramping about control, notably all being in service of the Lord, the actual Controller, who is also progress, expansion, character and necessity.
out of love for Krishna and His devotees
Anand Aadhar prabhu rpba 11:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandalizing alternative views
Could the general Wiki moderator please prevent mr. O Govinda from vandalizing anything that is not his personal taste? He deleted, most unscientific, and politically motivated, with false pretenses of authority and ownership over materials of other devotees that BBT tries to make money with, many more links from alternative sites of devotees but the ones to bhagavata.org and .net. Let mr. Govinda first prove himself what his 'I am God' authority scripturally would justify concerning materials of acaryas and devotees. Stop the materially motivated in the disguise of devotees. It is Hiranyaksha in person! Please Lord Varaha help us slay this demon! rpba 10:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Please help us slay this demon?? Very scientific and unpolitically motivated I'm sure. The nature of Wikipedia is open debate as to the content of any page, thus discussions, deletions, edits and reversions will happen quite regularly.
If something is in breach of copyright then according to Wiki policy it has to be removed. If you feel the web-page linked is not in breach of copyright then I'm not sure exactly how this would be resolved? There are already sufficient links to online versions of the Bhagavatam in English in the article which are definitely not copyrighted, so if the copyright of another page is in dispute I'd side with not including it untill a time where the debate is settled on a legal basis. Just trying to help. Regards, GourangaUK? 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen it's a scandal this intolerance between devotees intimidating. We also deleted the BBT links because the version of them presented there isn't even entirely written by Prabhupada as they claim. So that info is also false. Shame all of you. None are deserving
Dear Nrisimha. Please discuss the article content in a constructive manner without resorting to such tactics. I will revert your edits, and ask for intervention from an administrator if any more personal insults or illogical reversions are made. Why overreact in this way? GourangaUK? 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Gouranga, <Br> My personal opinion is that you are all fallen souls, revert that. Read [http://bhagavata.org/canto3/chapter18.html S.B. 3.18 & 19]
Aadhar (without the Ananda)
It is truly Kali yuga now (iron age, era of quarrel and strife), that can now not be stopped but we have to do our best to work with eachother to make it not a living hell! A devotee of our Lord (Krishna) only has the duty to work for Him and only to serve Him the best he/she can. He says in the Gita: "It is better to be unsuccessful with ones own duty than to perform perfect minding another's business as doing work restricted to one's own nature one will never run into offense." Also: But with all these activities must without doubt, performing them out of duty, the association with their results be given up; that, o son or Pritha, is My last and best word on it".
It seems that O Govinda and GourangaUK? have not completely read the 'Response from the Pirate', (to call someone a pirate is already an offence against sincere devotees); they prove their lack of understanding and devotion in their above replies. On top of it, it is they who disgrace the whole society of devotees! Why condemn your fellow man/women in their devotional service, why resent the devotional service of others? If one puts money or a good position in society on top of one's wishing list, then one is sure to fall down. Everything belongs to Krishna and the person who knows this and strives to serve Him is sure to be blessed, because Krishna says: I will bring him what he needs.
One will find sincere devotees with ISKCON but the political/money-striving at BBT! They are jealous, disgruntled and causing people heart-felt pain! This has to stop. I fully support the sincere striving devotee, who only has Krishna as his savior and true soul! ' Bhajahu Re Mana - Sing o mind, of Mine'!
Sakhya devi dasi /30-6-06
Dear Sakhya devi dasi - I have thoroughly read the above comments. They are full of personal insults against other editors; fundamental philosophy irrelevant to the issue at hand; and criticisms of members of ISKCON. Do you really think that gives your organisation a good name when people will read the above? As I see it there are two logical arguments:
- 1) The contents of your website are identical/virtually identical to the writing of Bhaktivedanta Swami and thus the copyright of the BBT. If their permission has not been obtained you are legally in breach of copyright and it is therefore acceptable for them to request the website removed. The logical course of action would seem to be to contact them directly by email or telephone as I believe they are vitually part of the same organisation as yourself.
- 2) The contents are significantly different to the writings of Bhaktivedanta Swami. Thus they are not in breach of any copyright. But then as part of ISKCON why would you siginificantly change the writings of your own spiritual master? I very much doubt you'd agree with this.
- a: I don't read what others write and only hear what I want to hear.<Br>
- b: I read and know what others say, and will this time try not to refuse to accept that progress is needed; after all the paramparâ has had more versions before Prabhupâda and will also have many after him; would the succession end with him? And how would you and me not be part of the succession? Aren't we all His limbs? I very much doubt you'd disagree with this.And why do we have "outbursts" while I would be holy?
Don't you write yourself: "Don't be stuck up in a system. The system is required provided if you make progress towards the realization of the Goal. But if you simply follow a system but do not make advance in the matter of realizing the Goal, then it is simply labor of love. It has no value." haribol Aadhar
It seems we would all benefit from cooling down. Here, as I see it, is the issue:
- Wikipedia policy says we shouldn't link to sites that infringe on copyrights--that is, that make big use of material copyrighted by someone else and don't have the copyright holder's permission.
- The sites Bhagavata.net and Bhagavata.org reproduce artwork and text published and copyrighted by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.Aadhar, do you disagree with these points? Or do you say you have the Book Trust's permission? Or do you assert some third alternative.
Dear Sir, my apologies, I realise now that you are not officially part of ISKCON? and have your own personal system of Yoga (see www.bhagavata.org/c/AnandAadhar?.html). Your mention of Kadamba Kanana Swami had led me to initially believe otherwise. Thus the second point I made above is to a large extent irrelevant in your case. I hope you can forgive me for this error - I will leave you to discuss the copyright issue with O Govinda?. Om Tat Sat, GourangaUK? 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC) <br> Okay apologies accepted. We embrace ISKCON even though they, as yet, do not love us that much. Aadhar rpba 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Copyright Issue continued
By the way, I see that within the last few minutes you or someone else has restored the links to those sites. Okay, fine. If I was going to call for some cool discussion, I probably should have left them alone. So before we enter another pointless round of reverting and restoring--or go on to further ways for resolving Wikipedia disputes--let's discuss the points above. Okay? Respectfully, O Govinda? 10:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Okay Govinda, let's talk about it. Read first the four points on copyrights I gave in my first defense. I insist that no rights have been breached and thus have the full right to be respected as a righteous reference.<Br>;Aadhar --rpba 10:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Thank you, Aadhar. I've reviewed your four points. Here is my response:
- 1. Your first argument is "fair use." Because you intersperse the copyrighted material with other material, you say, that makes the use fair.
- That would be true for "a quotation here, a quotation there." But when you reproduce (as you have) whole chapters of translations done by someone else, or (again as you have) all the word-for-word meanings and translations for an entire book ("Bhagavad-gita As It Is"), the use is so substantial in extent that it's no longer fair. And the pictures are indeed copyrighted.
- 2. You cite a need to refer to respected traditional sources. But the extent of your use of copyrighted texts far outpaces that need.
- 3. I'm not quite sure I understand your third point. It seems to be "ISKCON uses all this, and therefore so can I." ISKCON, however, has a license from the copyright holder, and you do not. That seems to invalidate your point.:4. Your fourth point seems to be "You can use someone else's copyrighted material as much as you want, as long as you don't make money on it." This is simply not true. It's not that, for example, I could print 10,000 copies of "The Da Vinci Code" and call it fair use, as long as I give the profit to The Salvation Army. Your argument simply doesn't fly.This is how I look at it. But clearly you see it the opposite way.
If you could work cooperatively in such a way as to reach an agreement with the copyright holder, that would solve the whole problem. But I don't know whether you can do that. Alternatively, if you have a site where you use only your own material, or material in the public domain, without heavily reproducing the copyrighted works of others, you could link here to that site. So now what?
Dear Govinda, There is no other way prabhu, <Br>
- 1) I do not quote any running text, no whole chapters, for they comprise purports I do not copy; I only use one verse at a time that I, and I am not sorry for it, necessarily have to discuss according<Br>
- 2) the paramparâ method that says first give the previous version and the word for word. Thus I obey. Otherwise I cannot do my work. I cannot link to the vedabase directly; that would violate the independence of the site. I would be invalidated if vedabase is out of the air, or would be down along with your server, which happens to all of us webmasters so now and then. Why not this sameness, what's the worry, what's wrong with this back-up to your fine service, why object to your own honor?<Br>
- 3) How can a servant obeying the command of the âcârya be in offense of whatever right he 'owns'? And what would ownership be in this - I insist- scriptural context? Remember the Gita 2:47 on this: to do your duty, ok, but one has no rights over the fruits what so ever. Is your 'law', 'authority' or 'command' bigger than that of Krishna? I don't think so.<Br>
- 4) What other reasons than the financial would there be to ban people from using the texts and such? There is one, namely that of preventing abuse of the text and images, but, since I follow procedure, this other argument of possible disrespective, and twisting use does not apply. In fact it is you who defend a double bind: not following my procedure I would be an heretic, and when I do follow, you deny me the right. This is driving people crazy!! Further: Your suggestion to link up with the 'my-texts-only' option, you have deleted yesterday when I did link up to our 'my-text-only' version of the book. So you ask for something you don't want and you demand for something you are not willing to give yourself. Double standards are no basis for reasonable agreement prabhu.<Br>
So let's close the argument now and let me do my devotional service. Please I beg you, create no further trouble. No one complains but you, with, to me, incomprehensible impersonalist formalism. What do you really want? My undivided attention? My blind obedience and submission to a demigod-thing like the BBT? Lord Caitanya says: mat-prâna-nâthas tu sa eva nâparah meaning, I serve the Lord and no one else. So where are your quotes of loyalty? Now, that would be paramparâ validity! I cannot and will not stop serving Krishna, Prabhupâda and His devotees the way it should. This is my last word about it. No more Kali. Chant and be happy with all the service we offer,<Br> Gratitude and example is the way to God, and not the effort to defile and control the behavior of others, however poor that behavior might be.<Br> Have faith man, hang loose and don't be such a square. Honest.<Br>
- In respect of Prabhupâda above all 'rules and regulations'Aadhar--rpba 08:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)P.S. Are you aware of O Govinda's conclusions right below this?Aadhar--It's true, you have not copied whole books. You have left out the purports. But (aside from the copied artwork) you have copied the word-for-word meanings and the translations for the entire Bhagavad-gita As It Is (700 verses) and the entire Srimad-Bhagavatam (17,000 verses), all of which are copyrighted.That goes way beyond fair use.As for your other points--essentially about what is "spiritually right"--that is a subject for discussion elsewhere. Here, what we're concerned with is whether or not a link to your site would violate the policies of Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia does value copyrights, and because your site infringes on them, linking here to your site goes against Wikipedia policy.Or is there something I'm overlooking?
As I said, fairness and necessity, who will be the judge of that? I understand what you mean by fair, but I see the necessity of what I do and say: all in love - for Krishna - is fair. Do you see that too? If it can't be as it should, it should be as it can. That also might be a legal decision. Do you know the jurisprudence in this? Do we need a materialist judge for that? Is he the greater one then? That is not our honor! Again thus, who of us two or three then, would be the greater judge? You? Wikipedia? I? We all exist by the Lord His mercy, let Him decide. If you or I can prove himself to be the avatâra, the original owner, let His judgement decide. Alas there is no Prabhupada anymore for us to tell us in this case what and who. But I remember what he said about the use of natural resources: are you the owner of the ore, the gold and diamonds you find in the earth? Isn't that the Lord?
- Hoping for closure and peace,haribol
Aadhar--rpba 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aadhar, for your response.You ask, Who will judge? Well, since this is Wikipedia, if we can't decide this among ourselves we will need to seek help from third parties, such as a Wikipedia administrator.As I've said before, the Wikipedia rule about linking to copyrighted material used without permission is quite clear: It's against Wikipedia policy.But, okay, let's look at this from a spiritual point of view. You say, "Alas there is no Prabhupada anymore for us to tell us in this case what and who." Fortunately, Srila Prabhupada, the author of most of the material you're using, provided for that. Before he left he formed a Book Trust, entrusted to it his copyrights, and appointed trustees to (among other things) make decisions about those copyrights on his behalf. So if you respect the author, you should respect the decisions made by his trustees.
The other authors whose works you have used without permission have also entrusted their copyrights to the Book Trust. So if you respect those authors, again you should respect the decisions of the trustees.:So, looking at the matter either spiritually or materially we arrive at the same point:
- If you have spiritual respect for the authors you should respect the right of their representatives to decide what you may or may not publish.
- And if you have respect for the laws of Wikipedia, you should respect the law that linking from Wikipedia to copyrighted material used without permission is not allowed. <Br>
Dear Govinda If someone like Prabhupâda or another devotee entrusts you with copyrights, doesn't that mean that you are entrusted with the all judgement of justice in that, especially not against his spirit. In this case, Wikipedia cannot decide by their 'laws', because this is matter of obedience and closing ranks to the world of illusion. If I obey Prabhupâda, who demands the method of reference discussing the holy texts (to give the Sanskrit word for word, and the previous version also), to my opinion that overrules the entrusted right to you. The pictures surely will not be objected against by any of the artists since vedabase does not present them, nor does any site elsewhere systematically to the texts. Prabhupâda explicitely stressed the presentation with pictures. So also in this I obey. So vedabase doesn't meet the purpose while I do. Actually I should also present the purports, but that is a less absolute demand I managed to drop and thus do keep the motive and advantage for also buying your books. No harm done. That was a fair compromise I thought.<Br> Another point to take notice of is that bhagavata.org was there first on the net in jan. 2000, because BBT was lax in their presentation that came only later. That was one of my motives to start with this. So it is understandable the way i've built the site, and that offers another argument in my favor. Why should I alter my ways for people following me? You didn't even thank me for it you know, nor do you presently match the requirements of presentation that Prabhupâda demands. He also said: use your own intelligence; and: when will you ever learn to be intelligent? So you are in offense relative to him and not I. So what do we call your attitude in this in normal lay terms? You are hitting your own acarya's servant! Would he approve? Children are known to be stricter than their parents in educating brothers and sisters. But I am not your younger brother thus, I was first born on the net in this simply doing what the acaryas told me to: the esteemed Kadamba and (former) Suhotra swami both independently of each other advised me to do devotional service with the computer. That is the mandate I work with, and the rest is simple logic. What, with my capacity, should I do else? I am paramparâ correct.<Br> Sorry prabhu, I think we better burry the hatchet and leave things be. This out of respect for the time, the person, the acarya, the painters who need their services to be acknowledged too, the peace and bliss of the Lord, and for the other devotee customers who have tuned in, are happy and grew accustomed to our presentations as they are - as you also did after all (partly). So I remain with my obedience saying that what I do Prabhupâda would have never objected since I follow the method, and offer a unique service like presenting things in Dutch, and offer pictures and bhajan music no one employs either, a promotion in which BBT also fails, nor is appreciative of, while everybody, still, and more and more, is pleased with it. So please, for Krishna's sake, lets use our sane mind and stop the formalist argument 'with-a-dagger-in-hand' which serves no one nor any devotional or financial purpose, nor any decency and respect in fact. My work only, to your advantage, advertised and promoted the bhâgavatam that the BBT sells. I've referred many buyers to your site for buying copies, since we don't sell any of our version (that you didn't print either, so I don't compete). There was no appreciation, nor full capacity to obtain it, for all of this from your side, nor do I demand that from you folks, but some integrity in respect of a (relatively) good job done (never good enough of course) and like assistence and support delivered, might be on its place I think.<Br> And please don't try to have the last word in this but with a positive and constructive one, you know this diplomatic campaign ends in war (as Prabhupâda explained it) if we don't find the mutual respect devotees should always maintain according their etiquette. Let's not prepare for a second Prabhâsa dear Yadu-brother! We had the taste already. There are ten thousand visitors each week at the site, that you offend and threaten too. I guess that is quite a bit of ISKCON involved then... So let's close this at the win-win situation we have now.<Br> Still love you for Krishna, despite the pain i.t.b.
- Aadhar-- 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You without further taking notice of this discussion removed our links. Are we of reason here? Clearly the copyright claim of Govinda is not quite justified or beyond reasonable doubt. Thus why this death penalty? I have restored the Links therefore.With all respect Aadhar--rpba 08:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The protest to the removal of this entire disussion was:
Is it correct to remove other contributons to the discussion on this? Isn't that abuse Govinda & Harrison? Speaking about being fair... what is a disussion page good for deleting the answers to your so-called absolutes of judgement? Enjoyers and controllers as Prabhupâda said. Watch them. And by the way... thanks for mentioning our webaddresses anyhow!<Br>; rpba? Your devoted pirate. 10:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
O Govinda anwered to this:
Restoring material deleted from this page
A second example concerns the page on the Kolbrin Bible It was filed for deletion with the followibg discussion:
Non notable fringe theory, not discussed in any mainstream reliable sources. Should be deleted per WP:FRINGE?. Many google hits, but all from fringe sites and the like. Texts of over 3,000 years old without any scholarly interest are rather dubious. Similar article Kolbrin? was deleted through ProD? previously. Fram? (talk?) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Defense: this is no theory, but a classical text book which is an essential part of the christian heritage. Fringe theory of people talking about this book should not be confused with the book itself. The text indeed is widely discussed these days in publications of several fringe science interest groups. The text itself though is ancient history. It is mentioned under other entries (religious texts). It is Indeed classically repressed for its possible heretical nature. Wikipedia should not uncritically side with classical repression calling old debatable texts 'theory' rpba? (talk?) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Answer:The Ph.D. Glenn Kimball, expert in ancient manuscripts from the Southern Illinois University, and lecturer and writer of more studies on King Arthur, archeology, Egyptology, Anthropology and Quantum Physics, has surfaced this book quite recently in his research. He is the most prominent authority in the field concerning this book. The documents were written during the intertestamental period, Kimball explained, and its final form was intact by the beginning of the second century A.D. This is the outcome of his research. I consider it valid. The Knights Templar eventually took possession of these documents (to protect them from the likes of King Edward I of England) and redacted The Kolbrin to reflect their point of view, Kimball noted. A typical example of an expert scientist involved with the book is James Mc Canney, who as an astrofysicist left mainstream science because of his opinions on the electomagnetic nature of celestial mechanics. The book is part of the discussion on the possible existence of a planet X also called Nibiru that would return once in a three thousand years or so. It is a paradigmatic discussion these days, and this book is relevant to this discussion because it seems to deliver historical proof for the case. rpba? (talk?) 13:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is Glenn Kimball, the Ph.D. in Communications?1 Not really a relevant Ph.D. for this kind of studies (or for astrophysics, for that matter). It is unclear whether he really is a Ph.D. and a lecturer 2. Have you any evidence of him ever contributing anything to some scholarly journal about these subjects (ancient manuscripts)? As far as I can see, I have no reason to consider his "research" as valid at all...
Again: it is a subject of discussion, and the scientists involved are who they are. It is not to me to judge the quality of this or that scientist or translation. Of relevance is whether there is a discussion among scientists. Not the issue is whether it is an immediate success in the sense of being published in this or that prominent magazine. To me the fact of these discussions is enough proof that the book is authentic. Why else would it be mentioned at the religious texts page? It wasn't debated there. Now you have a dead link there again if you deny information about that indeed possibly theologically dubious text. It is not the duty of scientists to judge this or that scientist themself, but to agree about resources and facts. And there is no doubt cast by anyone on the authenticity and historical truth of this book. So I give it the advantage of doubt. Also gnostics discuss about the validity of translations of the Nag Hammadi. That doesn't disqualify the book itself. To my opinion it would be socially destructive repression to deny the existence of this historical book. There is enough proof for the historical reality and actual relevance of the book in my opinion. That justifies this entry. Also looking at the content of the book itself leaves me no doubt. You don't have to agree with something to tolerate something. Mein Kampf? by mr A. Hitler is also discussed in the Wikipedia, even though that content is far more dangerous and dubious than the Kolbrin text! The question is, has your doubt been resolved Fram?rpba? (talk?) 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The article as it stands now is quite confusing. The article (improbably) asserts the antiquity of these manuscripts, while including it among modern pseudepigraphia. A factual article on the history, the claims made by these texts, and who promotes them, may well pass muster; the article I read doesn't seem to have this information ready. No opinion yet on whether this fringe theory? has sufficient circulation to be notable, whether on the Mormon? level, the Scientology? level, or even on the Oahspe? level. - Smerdis of Tlön? (talk?) 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Everybody is welcome to improve on this stub of course. I again insist that deleting this page and denying the historical reality of this book does harm to the interest of the public, more than the possible fringe theory about it.I close my argument with this reminding you of the fact that it is not logical to link this book e.g. up under Modern pseudepigrapha and not didplay it here. But do as you like. Your argument is valid in as far as you are not a scientist yourself apparently. At least you have no respect in that sense. The page is also submitted to the Game of Order wiki. I'll attach the label, 'repressed' to it as you like, including a copy of this discussion. It's your honor after all. So you can't really kill it. I have more of these 'martyr pages'. rpba? (talk?) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I would be in favour of keeping the article in existence. However, I would more specifically be in favour of an article of similar structure to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? - giving an overview of the contents of the book, some historical context, views on its (in)authenticity, etc. At present the article assumes legitimacy with no context given. --Black Butterfly? (talk?) 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I can't find a reliable source that will attest to this book's (ancient) existence. I actually agree with Black Butterfly above, and ultimately I think this may well end up with a page. However, I can't find any sources that WP considers reliable to use here. Per WP:FRINGE? we shouldn't be the validating source to make a fringe idea mainstream. Once this topic has been addressed by a mainstream source, a page like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or Face on Mars is appropriate. Xymmax? (talk?) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment regarding the claim above that "Glenn Kimball, expert in ancient manuscripts from the Southern Illinois University" see here (section titled "A New Twist (update 1/2002)") for an investigation into his identity following another suspected hoax, "Burrows Cave") and is not googleable at the Southern Illinois University website. Pete.Hurd? (talk?) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I can see no secondary sources that meet wikipedia's criterion of reliable sources? that are independent of the subject (this website does a nicer job than the wikipedia article, but is a totally unreferenced website). There's lots of website action, on UFO and planet-X websites discussing the book, and there's Glenn Kimball's book, but I don't see the reliable sources required to meet the WP:FRINGE? content guideline. I too would be all for keeping if it's brought up to a standard of quality approaching that of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Pete.Hurd? (talk?) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I observe that this is a new article nominated for deletion almost as soon as it was created, so that essentilally it has no history. My reaction to the whole thing is that it is an elaborate hoax. It is claimed to be heretical Christian (or Judaeo-Christian) literature, and claims a history for the book up to 1184, when suppressed by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307), an obvious anachronism! It was allegedly preserved by 'religious druids', but Druidism (whatever it was) was a pre-Roman religion in Britain. Any pagan religion had been extinct in Britain for hundreds of years by 1184. It was preserved 'on bronze tablets', not a usual medium for literary documents in Britain - parchment was the usual one. The parent website refers to the destruction of Glastonbury Abbey as an arson attack, but the WP article mere mentions a great fire. That website refers to this as 'the time of history when there was a great suppression of monasterys'. The greater monasteries (such as Glastonbury) were dissolved in 1539 and lesser ones a few years earlier. The name 'Culdian Trust' (a sponsoring organisation) reminds me of a word applied to the survivals of the Celtic Church in Scotland (as something distinct from the official Catholic Church). If this recollection is correct, they are seeking to apply somthing they have heard about Scottish Gaelic Christianity, to an area remote from Scotland that had been under English (i.e. Anglo-Saxon) control for hundreds of years. It is claimed that the book is in 'Biblical English', but what is that? There are virtually no English texts of the 12th and 13th centuries, indeed little between the Old English of the Anglo-Saxons and Middle English of Chaucer, but the language used is neither. It is not even the English of Shakespeare and the King James Bible, since the first person singular is 'you' not 'thou'. The orthography of the text is modern, from the period after Samuel Johnson?'s dictionary modernised English spelling (or at least I think that was when spelling changed). Everything about this subject says HOAX. The question is then what to do about it. Straight deletion may lead to re-creation, and a repetition of this debate, no doubt following amendment of the parent website to remove the gross anachronisms pointed out above. If a book has actually been published, so that the thing is a real existing hoax publication, and not a mere invention of the creator of a website, I think the best solution will be to add a rebuttal of the claims to the article to counter the WP:POV? that this is a genuine survival. In order to persuade me that this is not an elaborate hoax, I would need to see an image of the manuscript. Peterkingiron? (talk?) 23:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have adapted the text of the entry to reflect more the contents of this discussion and maintain meanwhile that deletion is not wanted since it is part of indeed an elaborate movement of related sites and YouTube? video's on the web. To keep silent on this while maintaining links to the book at other pages is an unwise policy. Either delete all traces in Wikipedia of reference to this book, ot honestly say what it is we think it is and let everyone then be his own judge on this. The latter is science in my respect, the former is repression. rpba? (talk?) 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well that didn't happen the last time it was deleted. That was why i resumed the discussion and entry of this subject. I found the Wikipedia in respect of the subject and the existence of this text. rpba? (talk?) 10:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Reading WP:FRINGE?, I agree that whether the book is ancient or a hoax or that's debated doesn't matter so much - other reliable sources besides Wikipedia need to worry about it before an article (based on those) can be kept here. --Minimaki? (talk?) 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You are not considered reliable beause you're hiding behind another authority than your own power of reason. Wikipedia should have a character and intelligence of its own too! I consider that inevitable.rpba? (talk?)13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. What? If no reliable sources are available, it needs to be deleted.--Prosfilaes? (talk?) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious hoax. Edward321? (talk?) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The page was finally deleted27th of November2007
Another example of material repressed elsewhere - by Wikipedia moderators - is the deletion of the pages on:
- The galactic year
- The Tempometer page
- Narayana Kasturi?; a page seriously cut down to the first paragraph and finally deleted later on.
Totaal aantal bezoekers voor deze Wiki sedert 6 Nov 2007: | Deze pagina werd 633 keer bekeken.