| Revision as of 15:59, 5 July 2014 edit2607:fcc8:b000:2100:41d7:e02f:7e42:5bdb (talk) error fixed← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:12, 17 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,677,131 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (35 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Jamusheen|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Low}} |
|
|class=B |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|listas=Jamusheen |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Low|class=B}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Spirituality|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Semiprotection request== |
|
|
This article has a history of being used as a platform for advertisement, and ] has repeatedly cited inapplicable policies as justifications for censorship ''of a talk page'', in an attempt to shield the article's subject from criticism. Plenty of other notable ] have articles whose talk pages sport the idle mockery of passersby, and whereas that sort of editing is not necessarily constructive, ''not a single one'' of those other crackpot articles has had a power user policing its talk page, censoring material '''('''(])'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not at all interested in deliberating on Jasmuheen's status, and neither is Misplaced Pages. But if a well-established user cannot be trusted to control himself, then surely we cannot expect the hoi polloi to show restraint either - and to date, they haven't. |
|
|
|
|
|
For these reasons, I feel it prudent and necessary to semi-protect this article, either indefinitely or until such a time as Jasmuheen is no longer a bone of contention. |
|
|
|
|
|
==No one== |
|
|
None who had truly gone for years with almost nothing to eat would be dreaming of such complex, oversweet, and hard-to-digest foods as chocolate and cheesecake. ]] |
|
|
:This woman is a dangerous fraud. At least one of her followers won a ] by self-inflicted dehydration. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
::Three people have died of ]. See the article for details. — ] 19:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yogis in India can transmute poison and people can transmute the negative affects of coffee, chocolate and cheesecake. Jasmuheen does not have followers. She believes in self mastery and self empowerment and that the only guru is within. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd love to see them try. ] (]) 05:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Who wrote this?== |
|
|
Who wrote this drivel?? I think you'd be better off deleting the whole thing and starting over. At best this person deserves a footnote mention, anyway. She failed the 60 Minutes test. I would think that 60 Minutes would get much higher ratings (and other monetary rewards) if they could prove Ellen right. They could sponsor her world tour thereafter and clean up. But she didn't pass and the story is a Australian footnote of which most of the world is unaware. |
|
|
|
|
|
How does one transmute poison? Who verified that the what the yogi drank or ate was poison? Did you just take their word for it? How does one transmute the effects of caffeine? (A new one to me.) If she isn't a guru, than she should keep her mouth shut (and get rid of her web site)so as not to expose anymore weak-willed people to her dangerous philosophies merely to aggrandize herself. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I have some property off . . .er I mean ON the coast of Florida I think you will be interested in. It's a snake oil farm. Cures everything, except gullibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Added tag, will delete if article doesn't improve... == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is more of an advertisement than anything else. If it is not cleaned up within a month or two, it's a goner. ] 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I reverted it back to its pre-advertisement form. It seems this wasn't the first time it was like that. Does anyone think this article should be locked to prevent the advertiser from rewriting it again? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Uh, what's the point? If we're going to lock a whole article just because a few vandals then we might as well just lock ALL of the articles, since many of them have persistent vandals as well. In fact, let's delete Misplaced Pages...no the WHOLE INTERNET, to support our new policy of taking it up the arse from vandals. Jeez, DON'T LOCK IT. I VOTE NO!!!! ] 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ellen Greve is a monstrous immoral fraudulent creep. I have contributed regularly to this Wiki entry in order to ensure that the stupid vulnerable people who search her name on the net have accurate information on her activities and remarks. I've been accused of vandalism by someone who's written that I'm a man don't beleive in God. What does that have to do with anyhting! This woman is a a bloody criminal, milking the weak minded for financial gain by postulating an enormous, ludicrous, utterly mad LIE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I taunted her into bragging that 1 billion people had heard her message, and that there are 64,000 'breathairians' in Europe, and that 'presidents and heads of militaries' have spoken to her about her plans. I succeeded in bullying her into closing her website forum, and I'm proud of that, because I think I may have saved lives. |
|
|
unsigned --- who is unsigned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:1) Your edits did constitute a violation of NPOV but, as they were apparently good-faith, would not constitute vandalism. Caution though: trying to re-instate them, knowing that they violate NPOV, actually would constitute vandalism. |
|
|
:2) The editor who reverted you was wrong to refer to your philosophical beliefs, but his statement is more nonsensical than offensive |
|
|
:3) I agree with everything you wrote, but it's still biased. It's biased to say the woman is preposterous in the same way that it's biased to say Hitler was a bad man. We explicitly don't allow the latter, so of course we don't allow the former. It's obvious from the article that she's preposterous. We don't make that kind of value judgment explicit, nor do we need to. |
|
|
:Cheers, ] 05:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Argyrios, the unnamed unsigned says clearly that his ways are "bullying" living persons, what his mission statement is re Jasmuheen is. and he views those you give it a try as "stupid people" who he is to save. |
|
|
::I wonder, how in the world you did leave such libeleous statements, which are to be removed immediately. --] 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Censorship == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else find the censorship in the comments hilarious? Like the line, "If she isn't a guru, than she should keep her mouth shut (and get rid of her web site)so as not to expose anymore weak-willed people to '''(])''' merely to '''(])'''. " I think that the censorship should either A.) stop, or B.) remove the whole line. Right now it's just ridiculous. By the way, feel free to delete this paragraph once the above censored comments are dealt with. ] 01:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New publication: Critical evaluation of Jasmuheen case == |
|
(''Above was moved from top in older topic on 3 October, 2007.)'' - ] 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear article editors/authors, |
|
:From ]: |
|
|
: |
|
|
:"Pay particular attention to ]: Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in ], or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." |
|
|
:"Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. This is especially true on the talk pages of ]." |
|
|
:] 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015 |
|
|
It is the first critical, in-depth review of all investigated cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. It also includes an evaluation of the investigation of Jasmuheen (see Supplement 6). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research. |
|
''(Comment "not relevant to improving the article" by ] deleted per ]'' - ] (]) 17:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field. |
|
:The whole point of censoring is a mere protection from libel. On the other hand, merely saying Ellen Greves is a fucking idiot is not libel, as it is expressing an opinion.] (]) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Best regards, |
|
::Besides, would you want some nut with access to a computer and the inclination towards trying her hoky shit looking on the internet and finding nothing? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:26, January 22, 2008</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
::cosigned (with ]). The replacing of words on this page with links to policies is deeply unnecessary and rather silly. ''']''' 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus H. Mast |
|
== Jasmuheen Controversy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
I ask the wikipedia team to check the source and regular changes to the article on Jasmuheen. Most of what is written and regulalry replaced is biased and comes from a few sources of people who wish to discredit her regardless of her research. The information is not balanced nor does it reflect her work. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:We're always looking for more material based on ]. Feel free to add any you might have. - ] (]) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi, looks like a good paper its a shame you went for that journal. Unfortunately the journal is a bit dodgy. The ] is an alternative medicine and paranormal journal. It is not considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages and most scientists don't take the journal seriously. Have a look at ]. ] (]) 14:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
== "fluids" sentence == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@]: When you publish on such a controversial issue, you will find it practically impossible to get your article published in a mainstream journal. Certain topics are basically banned. I suggest you give it a try ;). Explore journal isn't dodgy. It's open-minded. It is a proper scientific outlet for topics outside of the mainstream. The best you can aim for as an author writing on this. Think about it. What would you do as an author? Publish a book instead? Then everyone would go "Oh, it's not peer-reviewed!" Not publish at all? If that's where we're at, then goodbye knowledge. ] (]) 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
:''Greve has also - confusingly - stated that she has not yet mastered the ability to be fluid-free for more than short periods.'' |
|
|
Firstly, this needs a cite, though given that it appears to be consistent with her reported intake of tea and such, isn't unreasonable as such. (I'm skating lightly over any possible conflict between her reported and actual intake of nourishment, obviously.) But more importantly, why 'confusingly'? It sounds like editorialisation, and I don't even understand its thesis as to ''why'' this is confusing, given said self-reporting. But I might be misreading this, or missing something. Please clarify if possible. ] (]) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Hi, I don't think it is a good idea to promote your paper as advertisement on different talk pages, which you now do on another . Unfortunately ''Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing'' fails ] and that is why it is not used on any articles on Misplaced Pages. It's basically a pseudoscience journal and its editorial team consist of a faith healer ] and a man who thinks magic (people can levitate) is real ]. It seems the ''Explore'' journal likes magical thinking even publishing a paper claiming the Brazilian medium ] was genuine (!). Crazy. This seems to be a journal working as an apologist for the paranormal. It reminds me of creation "scientists" trying to get their creationism published. I look forward to reading your review but the journal is not a reliable science journal by Misplaced Pages standards or any scientist for that matter. Others may disagree of course but there is nothing else I can add here. But useful information about Jasmuheen can be found in Tucker, S. D. (2018). ''Quacks!: Dodgy Doctors and Foolish Fads Throughout History''. Amberley Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4456-7181-9 , so yes books are a good source of information. I will get round to adding this. ] (]) 16:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:See ]. --] (]) 06:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: I just wanted to point out the article on the relevant pages as it relates to their content. I think that's an appropriate thing to do and not "spamming". Other than that, I'm not here to argue or discuss. You think what you think and do what you want to do with this information. ] (]) 10:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
Her page is hilarious. Good job whoever wrote the first few paragraphs.. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
I would like to bring to your attention my recently published scientific review article on cases of claimed inedia / breatharianism / bigu: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.05.015
It is the first critical, in-depth review of all investigated cases where claimants where monitored around the clock. It also includes an evaluation of the investigation of Jasmuheen (see Supplement 6).
I required a high methodological standard for such extraordinary claims to be considered verified. None of the studies were able to meet that standard. Yet, there are curious cases and results that justify further research.
You may want to consider citing the article on this page. I think it can give readers some orientation in this controversial field.
Marcus H. Mast
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
.jpg){kind=small}