Talk:Roza Bal: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:58, 30 January 2013 editSuzanneOlsson (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users818 edits →Merge ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:15, 30 January 2013 edit undoVanishedUserABC (talk \| contribs)78,528 edits →Merge Next edit →
Line 199:		Line 199:
	::* I also support the merge, and have for years! Without Roza Bal there can be no need to mention YUz Asaf. In Afghanistan the name means "son of Joseph" by tradition. This should be included as there is no other possible definition. I would also mention the original tomb was painted a shade of blue mentioned specifically in Jewish texts only, and used by them to this day. It was obtained by mixing color from a local plant but I dont recall which one. I would also include the relics, there were approximately 5 or 6. They appear in photos in most of the books written about the tomb. They include the Rod, the written history maintained by the Rishis, who copied the original over every few centuries to preserve them (this ancient document is now in possession of the Government of India). The Rod was placed in a special extra long casket that was also original to the tomb. This is vital info as Hebrews buried anything associated with 'God' in cemeteries and tombs rather than discard anything, which was (and is) considered a sacrilege). Of course the carved feet with the crucifixion wounds would be the most critical relic, especially because the wounds match the Shroud of Turin. This is what leads people to conclude there is a connection with Jesus. The "sword in the stone", the wooden cup, the carved "alter", and the sarcophagus itself should all be included as original relics, plus the fact that the actual bodies are under the tomb floor, not within the tomb itself. Reference goes back to the 18th century, when the tomb was mentioned by the Grand Mufti in 1747.This was in regard to wrangling over ownership of the tomb which was already generating huge sums of money from pilgrims. It was then mentioned that it was the tomb of a prophet identified as Yuz Asaf (son of Joseph) who is also identified with crucifixion wounds. The Book of the Bee is considered Apocrypha but contains details about the Rod in Jesus' possession, and dates from the 4th century. The Bahavia Mahapurana contains reference from the First Century, not naming Jesus specifically, only identifying him as a prophet. I would include as many supporting books as possible, even Aziz Kashmiri because although not widely available, his book '''can''' be located in India once people are made aware of it. He died 2 years ago at a very advanced age. His book is valuable for several reasons, including mention of a grave for King David's son nearby. This matches the Biblical description of the son (or was it grandson? I have two look again). No one else to my knowledge has included this valuable information and I know some recent researchers in India are investigating that now.		::* I also support the merge, and have for years! Without Roza Bal there can be no need to mention YUz Asaf. In Afghanistan the name means "son of Joseph" by tradition. This should be included as there is no other possible definition. I would also mention the original tomb was painted a shade of blue mentioned specifically in Jewish texts only, and used by them to this day. It was obtained by mixing color from a local plant but I dont recall which one. I would also include the relics, there were approximately 5 or 6. They appear in photos in most of the books written about the tomb. They include the Rod, the written history maintained by the Rishis, who copied the original over every few centuries to preserve them (this ancient document is now in possession of the Government of India). The Rod was placed in a special extra long casket that was also original to the tomb. This is vital info as Hebrews buried anything associated with 'God' in cemeteries and tombs rather than discard anything, which was (and is) considered a sacrilege). Of course the carved feet with the crucifixion wounds would be the most critical relic, especially because the wounds match the Shroud of Turin. This is what leads people to conclude there is a connection with Jesus. The "sword in the stone", the wooden cup, the carved "alter", and the sarcophagus itself should all be included as original relics, plus the fact that the actual bodies are under the tomb floor, not within the tomb itself. Reference goes back to the 18th century, when the tomb was mentioned by the Grand Mufti in 1747.This was in regard to wrangling over ownership of the tomb which was already generating huge sums of money from pilgrims. It was then mentioned that it was the tomb of a prophet identified as Yuz Asaf (son of Joseph) who is also identified with crucifixion wounds. The Book of the Bee is considered Apocrypha but contains details about the Rod in Jesus' possession, and dates from the 4th century. The Bahavia Mahapurana contains reference from the First Century, not naming Jesus specifically, only identifying him as a prophet. I would include as many supporting books as possible, even Aziz Kashmiri because although not widely available, his book '''can''' be located in India once people are made aware of it. He died 2 years ago at a very advanced age. His book is valuable for several reasons, including mention of a grave for King David's son nearby. This matches the Biblical description of the son (or was it grandson? I have two look again). No one else to my knowledge has included this valuable information and I know some recent researchers in India are investigating that now.
	The page looks really wonderful now. The pictures and film links should be added. I wrote to India Film Board and asked for their suggestions. As soon as I get a reply, I'll let you know. I thank you so much for putting the effort in to this page. Although mention is included that some authors write this is a legend on the scale of Joseph of Arimathea, I disagree and believe they did not do diligence in investigating the age of the tomb, the position of the Government of India, and the supporting relics and documents. For fair and balanced reporting these must be included so people have a clear understanding '''why''' the theory exists at all. The relics of Roza Bal should take center stage. They are more conclusive evidence even than anything found by Tabor and Jacobovici! Who ever helped and did this page over, thank you. You are hugged and blessed. If you would like a copy of my (worthless self published) book which contains all this information as well, please contact me and I'll get it, or the EBook version to you. Thank You. Thank You. Thank You. ] (])Suzanne Olsson] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		The page looks really wonderful now. The pictures and film links should be added. I wrote to India Film Board and asked for their suggestions. As soon as I get a reply, I'll let you know. I thank you so much for putting the effort in to this page. Although mention is included that some authors write this is a legend on the scale of Joseph of Arimathea, I disagree and believe they did not do diligence in investigating the age of the tomb, the position of the Government of India, and the supporting relics and documents. For fair and balanced reporting these must be included so people have a clear understanding '''why''' the theory exists at all. The relics of Roza Bal should take center stage. They are more conclusive evidence even than anything found by Tabor and Jacobovici! Who ever helped and did this page over, thank you. You are hugged and blessed. If you would like a copy of my (worthless self published) book which contains all this information as well, please contact me and I'll get it, or the EBook version to you. Thank You. Thank You. Thank You. ] (])Suzanne Olsson] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:Just send a large wire transfer to In ictu oculi, department of page improvement, Republic of Misplaced Pages. He did very well. ] (]) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:15, 30 January 2013

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roza Bal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Islam Unassessed

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Unassessed

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India: Jammu and Kashmir Stub‑class Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Mid-importance).

Merge 2006

I suggest to move the information contained in Yuz Asaf over here, as this article is fits here better, in the article on the site. Also, the site is real while the figure of Yuz Asaf and his identification with Jesus is highly questionable. This should also solve the problem of this article being a stub. Str1977 21:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, that makes sense... doesn't seem to be any objections... I'm here in Srinagar now, and plan to find this place tomorrow, if I find out anything new I'll be sure to add it... Cacahuate 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoax of the century. The Jews their friends the Ahmadis are behind the hoax. No semite ever came into Hindu Kashmir. Read Rajataringini. See the real story behind this fraud: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.202 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is a hoax: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Christianity stub?

Moved from the article:

This is not a Christianity stub. The Roman influenced areas of Christianity were never informed of Tomb of Jesus related information (or the information was withheld by the Vatican) so it is only really known about in Eastern branches of Christianity and amongst other faiths of the area. The Roman influenced areas include all Protestant denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.148.93 (205.250.148.93 • contribs) 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The tomb information is, as far as I can tell, unknown in Eastern branches of Christianity, although there are ancient inscriptions indicating their presence in the area. Further study on this is being conducted by a number of individuals from various backgrounds, Fida Hassnain among them. I am myself hoping at some point to discover the viewpoints of the Mar Thoma churches in Kerala, South India, but have been unable to do so yet. BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wars

Valid research links were removed. I have returned them. There are about 3 concurrent conversations on this topic at Wikipdeia at the moment. It started because not only were resources and citations removed, they were replaced with highly predjudicial and demeaning links. This was initiated by someone who has a past pattern of trashing authors he doesn't agree with. It became neccessary to put a stop to things before they went too far. HighonaTree, I would be grateful if you would leave this alone now. These issues are being taken to Administrative level and I would not want you dragged into it. many Thanks.NewYork10021 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Numerous editors have doubted or denied that these books can be regarded as reliable sources, the only ones arguing otherwise are the single-purpose accounts belonging to Olsson herself and her relative (and now you as a brand-new user). See:

Talk:Yuz_Asaf#Suzanne_Olsson_book

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination)

User talk:R.Tabor

User talk:Kashmir2

User_talk:Dougweller#Self_Published_Books_on_Wikipedia

Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Yuz_Asaf

As for your veiled threat:

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no veiled threats. You are misinterpreting. "Many" editors did not deny reliablitlity. Only one or two over and over again. By the way, look again at the prior post by Bob Griffin in which he states the research being done by Fida Hassnain and "others' The "Others' include Suzanne Olsson and her books, one of which is co-authored with Hassnain.. NewYork10021 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to carry on here. Let it end now. Let them edit whatever they see fit. The edits and these posts speak for themselves. People can see that and judge the rightness(or otherwise) of how Wiki editors manage information and make decisions here.

SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Roza Bal and Yuz Asaf "Edits'

Fullstop said at the 'Yuz Asaf' talk page:

Regardless of whether Olsson is reliable or not,... the Olsson book is completely irrelevant as this article is about 'Yuz Asaf' and not whether Jesus survived the crucifixion (which is—in all its numerous facets—what Olsson's book is about). Misusing this article to spin-up that subject is coatracking/OR. She can appear somewhere on WP (e.g. in one of the numerous Jesus articles), but not here. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)end of quote...................

This statement clearly shows lack of understanding of the topic at hand when Wiki editors choose to add or delete things. In Hassnain's and my own books are whole chapters devoted to seeking links between the names Yuz Asaf and Jesus as the entire premise is that Yuz Asaf IS Jesus who IS buried in Roza Bal tomb. There are only two pages here at Wiki that are relevent to our research, this one, 'Yuz Asaf' and 'Roza Bal', the tomb of Jesus. The editor 'Fullstop' is totally ignorant of the topic and should not be making editing decisions here. But no worries, Fullstop, as you can see, our names have been wiped off almost every page at Wiki since these editing wars started.

G.Rutter has been editing the 'Yuz Asaf' page since April 2005. He has taken it upon himself to make most all decisions regarding the edits to this page. Look at the Talk history and it quickly becomes evident that he also doesn't have a clue what is relevent. Many lengthy discussions and arguments have erupted because he clearly does not understand the topic at all. 'High on a Tree' is an editor on the "Roza Bal' page who also has no knowledge of the subject and makes very poor choices in choosing how to edit that page. It has become his 'pet project' and he will edit as he darn well sees fit, whether it helps the page or not.

To Dougweller, first I am posting under my own name. I didn't have a name at Wiki before this. Second, this is about contention over removing books and sources. That is what started all this, don't you recall? Legitimate sources and links were removed and replaced with just one negative and highly inflammatory article by some fringe group represented by just one individual. Yet you all, as editors, allowed this to happen. It is shocking. Getting that straightened out with Paul Smith, aka Wfgh66 has gradually led to all traces of my name being stricken from Wiki. Self-promotion? Or self-defense?

While erasing me you were allowing ridiculous material to remain. Saying I was deleted because I was "self-published" was grossly unfair because several self-published books remained even fictional books, that none of you 'editors' questioned. The reason 'Roza Bal Line' remained at the 'Roza Bal' page was because I didn't put it there, nor remove it because I didn't know the rules. I am not a Wiki editor.

As you were explaining the rules I realized you were allowing many others to circumnavigate them. On this page and the 'Roza Bal' page have appeared self-published fiction, links to articles about Billy Meier and his Jesus information gathered from aliens, and even a self-promotional book about a man's travels to Kashmir. Such resources were all that remained while you were targeting me for what you refer to as "fringe" self published fiction.

Finally Doug, you worded something in a way that suggested my books were 'fiction' and that was the end of the discussion. My books and Hassnain's books were immediately deleted by another editor listening in on our conversation. We, meaning Professor Fida hassnain and myself, only research Yuz Asaf, Roza Bal, and Jesus in India after the crufcifixion. We present as much research from India as we can find in India to support these views. People who write other books, and make films on the topic depend upon our material as a reliable source because they themselves cannot get to India or Kashmir....and if at all, then only for a few days. There are two independent film productions coming out in next few weeks, and a dozen more already out there that have consulted us for accurate information about this topic. Articles about our research appear regularly around the world. Fortean Times, Times of India, and several Italian, Russian and Scandinavian newspapers and magazines have peer reviewed our books in the past. I know there are many more based upon the emails I get, but I don't happen to keep records of them.

We never get royalties or pay from others. We have no money to show for all this effort. We think it is important to keep the research in the forefront (and as hassle-free as possible) in anticipation this will not only help protect these sites but will promote the DNA and archaeological research, things we have worked tirelessly for.

Of course I personally feel targeted here now, and I feel you have acted unfairly and unjust. You have attempted to trash my name, my work and valid contributions. You refer to them as "fringe" and fictional, and not worthy to appear on these pages. I am saddened by such words and by your lack of understanding about this topic.

I wont post here again. I just wanted to leave this message for all those who come here to read about Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. I personally do not believe any of the Wiki editors in this situation have acted fairly or understood what they were/are editing. On that note, and with a sense of sadness and regret over your handling of these issues, I shall close this discussion.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When Suzanne Olsson told me some books were self-published, I checked, found out they were, and removed them. She put them back. Not having time to carefuly scrutinise every book is not the same as 'allowing'. I definitely did not call Olsson's books fiction and have tried my best to explain to her how Misplaced Pages works. I clearly failed. This is all clearly 'fringe' by Misplaced Pages standards, though. Doug Weller (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:"... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above)....as per removal of relevent sources and replace with sources of highly speculative and dubious agendas...

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Misplaced Pages article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Misplaced Pages article to support the original speculative contention.

–Jimmy Wales SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Today I undid an edit made by someone here who also accused me of "shameless self promotion" then deleted m\that refrence. May I please point out to same person that you allowed to remain a fictional book that has been based upon my non-fiction, a book that was self-published for years before being picked up by a small publisher in India...the author (The Roza Bal Line by Shawn Haigins) "shamelessly" inserted his book in numerous topics around Misplaced Pages....while mine, also picked up by a small publisher in India, is still being hassled here at Misplaced Pages. I have nothing against Shawn personally. I am merely pointing out the hypocracy of the edits being made here and at the "Yuz Asaf" page. If this continues, I will make a formal complaint to higher authorities at Misplaced Pages, rewrite and update the entire article , and request that the page be locked. I hope you understand and see the irony in these kinds of spiteful edits and comments. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Release of New Book To Be Included

Professor Fida Hassnain and I have researched Roza Bal tomb for years and now our book is released. The Title is Roza Bal, The Tomb of Jesus. We have spent years investigating the name Yuz Asaf associated with the tomb and with Jesus. We investigate the claims that Yuz Asaf could be Jesus and that he survived crucifixion. We investigate the history of Roza Bal tomb and the claiments of a bloodline to Yuz Asaf and Jesus. We are actively seeking the DNA from Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. The book is self-published in America. However it is also published by Gulshan Publishers in India, a reputable Publishing house with years of academic books listed in their titles. We do not need to provide a link to the amazon site. It just seemed the most convenient way for readers to locate the book. What would you suggest replace this? Further, there are numerous authors associated with Misplaced Pages who have self-published fiction and non-fiction books even including fiction titled Roza Bal. You have no difficulties with those, nor with their links to amazon. If they are in compliance here, I am sure we can be too. Please advise me how you would like the reference to this important book to appear here. If there is a special formula, please show me. The presence of a link to a reliable, up to date and well researched history of Roza Bal is much needed here. Why would you NOT want it to apear? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I always have difficulties with self-published books and links to Amazon. When I see them I delete them. It's unusual for a book to have be both self-published and properly published. I suggest you just list the book with both publishers and put a note on the talk page (and in the edit summary say 'see talk page'. If you include the ISBN13 number users can click on it and find the book - you need to do it this way -- ISBN 978-1413304541. dougweller (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deep sigh of relief here. I will go back and redo the page(s) as you suggested. Thank you and Happy Valentine Day. Suzanne Olsson (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dougweller"

The statement:

"...The Lost Tomb" by Suzanne Olsson is the most recent historical and factual research into the histrocity of the tomb..." this is POV and shameless self promotion and marketing, if the book needs to be mentioned just put it in a list of books regarding the topic.

histrocity is also misspelled.

-jb3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.175.62 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Today I undid an edit made by someone here (as seen above) who also accused me of "shameless self promotion" then deleted that reference. May I please point out to same person that you allowed to remain a fictional book that has been based upon my non-fiction, a book that was self-published for years before being picked up by a small publisher in India, but remains self-published in the USA...the author (I refer to "The Roza Bal Line" by Shawn Haigins) "shamelessly" inserted his book in numerous topics around Misplaced Pages....while mine, also picked up by a small publisher in India, is still being hassled here at Misplaced Pages. I have nothing against Shawn personally. I am merely pointing out the hypocracy of the edits being made here and at the "Yuz Asaf" page. If this continues, I will make a formal complaint to higher authorities at Misplaced Pages, rewrite and update the entire article , and request that the page be locked. I hope you understand and see the irony in these kinds of spiteful edits and comments. Thank youSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

Roza Bal

] SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Conflicts

My new domain, rozabal.com, just went 'live' about 3 weeks ago. I have been trying to get that domain for years! Do you know why Doug? Because that is my main research field for over ten years. A Shroud of Turin website would aptly be named 'Shroud of Turin" (actually it is named 'shroud' and Barry Shwartz, its founder, has a huge presence here at Wiki, where he also keeps links and info current and up to date) in the same way I have been attempting to update sites where this is relevant. Roza Bal topic at Wiki is one of the key places people look for information about Roza Bal. There are maybe 4 people in the entire world who can contribute to this topic. I am one of them, and have been for over 10 years, and so of course my name is coming up everywhere this topic comes up. Several years ago Dougweller and I clashed over this topic. At that time Doug believed it was a 'fringe' wacko theory and didn't want it to have any presence at Misplaced Pages.From then till Doug has taken over the Roza Bal page, being sure to delete every legitimate lead, reference, further reading, films, et cetera. The other day I tested this by posting links to several other books on the same topic, books written by other investigators. Doug deleted all of them. Roza Bal appears to be an obscure topic supported by a lone group of Ahmaddis, whom Doug does tolerate but only after arguments with him years ago. All the latest mainstream films and books and web pages are deleted from this site. Doug has relentlessly followed me around Misplaced Pages to argue, delete, and comment on everything I do here. I'm afraid to make any contributions! At the top of this page in bright red letters is a 'warning' about harassment.Doug,I consider you harassing me. This has nothing to do with Roza Bal anymore. You have taken this to a whole new personal level. How can you determine that it's OK for the Tomb of Jesus website to remain on the page? How can you allow Fida Hassnain, my co-author to remain on this page (and in other Wiki pages) as a source and reference, but not me? How can you allow the TOJ and Ahmaddi views and sources remain on the page, places that have used me as a source reference for years, but you do not tolerate me or my web site, regardless who posts the info or the web site www.rozabal.com. Even if the contribution is made by my grandaughter or legitimately someone in China, you are clearly prejudiced and blindsided. You couldn't make that any more obvious than in your posts here. You have become the worse kind of Wiki editor. Shame on you Dougweller.]] SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Book and Support of Author website

I might point out here that an author and friend, Ashwan Sanghi, has a page up for a self-published fictional book about Roza Bal tomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Rozabal_Line. At the amazon.com website for my book about Roza Bal, http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Kashmir-The-Lost-Tomb/dp/1419611755, he clearly credits me and my research as the inspiration and ideas for his fictional books.I do not see this page being harassed, deleted, or altered in any way, nor should it be.

It's clearly a notable book - when you get the attention he does, then you might get an article. That doesn't affect our general policy towards self-published works. And please, section headings start and end with just ==, nothing else. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Really Doug? What is your policy toward self-published works? And what determines how he got this "attention"? And what about book sales? I thought that's what really determined a "notable book." At this moment h hasn't sold a book in months and his sales rank at amazon is well below a million. My book ranks 57th. I also added numerous titles for further reading about Roza Bal, all by other authors. These were deleted. WhY? The only possible association is because they were submitted by me. They are important contributions to this topic, yet deleted because I made them, and for no other reason. If all submissions and corrections MUST be made by others, that is easy to accomplish. I am sure 90% of all pages here at Wiki are done that way, by a wife or a grandchild or a friend.I know of dozens of other pages personally that were created that way. What my concern is, no matter who or where the entry comes from, how do you determine "deletion"? Seems to be a personal choice for individual editors under all circumstances. By what criteria are you determining 'relevancy"? Something from this group or person is acceptable abut Roza Bal, but not 'that' group or person? This is where your logic fails me.

The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. Roza Bal is an example of a poorly written page. When I do try to improve and edit it,to expand on it, I get knocked right down, COI always being the reason. But I didn;t create the page. I have no idea who did. Apparently even if someone in India links to my page or book, it gets removed, especially if there is a remote reference to me. You just said it Doug "If I get the attention that Ashwan Sanghi does". You have no idea the back story behind all this! Nor is this the place to discuss it. But your demeaning comments clearly indicate your personal feelings toward me (and I'm sure it's not affection). There is much that can be included on the Roza bal page to make it powerful and draw people in such as the political and religious wrangling over the tomb, or the fact that it generates more income for the local private "Trust" second only to the entire budget for the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. That's a lot of rupees! Do you know how many visitors come to Roza Bal each year? How many additional books about the place? How many documentary films? What religious relics were in the tomb that led people to conclude it was the tomb of Jesus? No. And no one will ever know because of Wiki "editors" making poor judgement calls. I would like to present this page about the Talpiot Tomb.

(see 'Talpiot Tomb').It is very well written and provides a detailed history of this alleged tomb of Jesus. Could anyone with a COI have contributed to this information? How might any Wiki editor know this for a fact? Now I ask you to compare that Wiki page with this Wiki page about the Roza Bal, another alleged tomb of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/Roza_Bal (see 'Roza Bal Tomb')

Roza Bal merits every bit as much information as Talpiot tomb. I inserted links to at least five other books that included info about Roza bal, and all were deleted by Wiki editors who happen to think I am contributing to 'fringe' theories-or that I am not "notable" enough, when clearly these are meant to be hindrances flamed by some editors personal prejudices or religious beliefs.. A few million people in India revere the tomb, as do a few million Ahmadii Muslims. There is ample documentation about the tomb, court cases that go back 500 years,there are also relics, books and film documentaries. There have been murders and deaths and threats of terrorism surrounding the tomb. It generates almost as much income as the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. A very interesting page could be (and should be) assembled with all this information about Roza Bal, but because of the prejudice of just a few Wiki editors, the Roza Bal page cannot get past a paltry four meager paragraphs. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs)

I think Ms Olsson is complaining about Misplaced Pages policies here, as much as anything else. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss Misplaced Pages policy such as WP:Fringe, of course. Given the above, Craigslist may be a better venue to self-promote Ms Olsson's ideas for Misplaced Pages policies are unlikely to change. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yuz Asaf Name Researched in Afghanistan

Mr. Dougweller- Since you seem to be extremely concerned about COI entries, especially made by an author or someone with personal firsthand knowledge about a topic, would it resolve these issues if the very same information was submitted by someone else, preferably far away in a different State or country? Would that then put your mind at ease? For the life of me I cannot imagine how all these sites appear n Misplaced Pages that are clearly made by those with personal interest in the topic...Tis a fine line ... SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzanneOlsson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Ms. Olsson needs to read WP:MEAT.... History2007 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think History2007 is making insinuations that have no place here. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not insinuate, I am upfront, and think that given your comment, you need to read WP:MEAT. And as stated above, I also think Misplaced Pages is not a venue for self-promotion, and you may find Craigslist a more suitable medium. The only thing you have not done here is add an 800-number for ordering your book. Your complaints seem to be as much about Misplaced Pages policies as anything else. History2007 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear Vandalism of the Roza Bal Page

The article about Roza Bal has been edited in a most misleading and prejudicial way! The editor History2207 has changed key sentences to clearly reflect badly on the tomb's historicity. Further, to write that "some Ahmadis hold that the Roza Bal structure is not the tomb of Jesus, but a monument to his earlier proposed visit to the location before his crucifixion." This is either a bold faced lie or gross ignorance of what the Ahmaddi faith is all about. There is not an Ahmaddi on earth who would make such a claim! In addition, looking over the list of "references" it is clear that most are not pertinent to the tomb in any way.By making these edits, History2007 has shown a huge ignorance of the entire topic, and a huge prejudice against this topic, and has deliberately posted misleading information and outright lies. You have probably now upset several million Muslims...I will let them edit the pages, and deal with you. What a shameful way to destroy the Roza Bal page! SuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough that statement comes from a WP:RS source published by Rowman & Littlefield, unlike your self-published source. Now, you need to read:

and follow Misplaced Pages policy. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Copied text deleted from article

The association of Jesus with Roza Bal tomb is also found in "Tarikh-i-Kashmir, The History of Kashmir" by Mulla Nadri, written in 1420 A.D. After describing the tomb of Rozabal, he writes that :

"I have seen in a book of Hindus that this prophet was really Hazrat Isa (Jesus), the spirit of God,on whom be peace (and salutations) and had also assumed the name of Yuzu Asaph (one interpretation of this is 'son of Joseph', a term also used in neighboring Afghanistan). The real knowledge is with God. He spent his life this (valley). After his departure (his death) he was laid to rest in Mohalla Anzmarah (modern Khanyar, where Rozabal is). It is also said that lights of prophet-hood used to emanate from the tomb of this Prophet."

Who says this is where Rozabal is? How do we verify this quotation? Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no indication in that text that it is the same location unless Mulla Nadri had specified the coordinates, mentioned a few towns near there, or something of that type. History2007 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of WP:RS sources

I see a few less than WP:RS sources here again. Based on this and the publisher's site I think Aziz Kashmir's book is not a WP:RS source, and Aziz Kashmir seems to be a local person there and not a scholar of note. Some of the material seems to come from Suzanne Olsson's book sans reference. Either a WP:RS source for that needs to be provided, or it needs to go. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the further reading items, over 50% were not WP:RS and had to go; and I added ISBNs for some others, etc. in any case. Ram Chandra Kak's book is from 1933, may be too old to be WP:RS. I think Hassnain's books may just be ok, but he must be having fun with his publisher, for sure. There are reports on the web that Blue Dolphin is ripping off its own authors, not paying royalties, etc. Some publisher that is... But that is another story... History2007 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have been aware for several years about the misunderstandings over royalties. However, I can also site mainstream authors making the same complaints about large publishing house Like Simon and Schuster. I have the jpg of the footprints from nside roza bal...How do I upload the pictures? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

History2007, I would like to send you a private message. No I promise I wont ask you for date or a loan. I checked your page but no way to contact you there. please direct me. Thank You.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept private messages on Misplaced Pages, from anyone. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That's probably best for you History2007.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

More items with less than WP:RS sourcing

After all the discussion about sourcing, in this edit, more unsourced and purely speculative items (including youtube) and other items already discussed were added. I did not revert them right away not to start an edit war, but this can not go on. The more we talk about WP:RS, the more unsourced items we get. This is turning to be a user-behavior issue on the part of Ms. Olsson, and needs to be addressed. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

===WHOA! Stop right there Mr. History2007...the youtube links were to films made by the Government of India and the BBC...do I need to bring up hundreds of Wiki pages with youtube links? you also deleted a link to the valuable book by Aziz Kashmir because you felt it was "too old" and not available. It is available in India. Have you ever been to India? I think their current population is approaching a billion people. THEY have access to the book, and many of them look to Wiki for this kind of information. And you inference that I posted information "clearly" from my book is also meant to prejudice other editors reading here. Have you ever read my book? Can you cite the exact page where those quotes allegedly came from? If not, then clearly you should not make such statements.Had you been more civil I was going to explain to you the sources are coming, but I just lost my son and have funeral arrangements to make.I will post the sources but I needed a little time to go through the 3,000 books here to get the exact page numbers..I asked you for some time and understanding. That's all. You are clearly in error here, and clearly showing your personal prejudices.. SuzanneOlsson

I have not been aware of your personal life issues, of course. And in that case my condolences. We will wait until your personal issues are handled in real life, then resume.

I will, however, just note that your book states (word for word): "In the tomb was a strange piece of wood, now stripped of any jewels and decorations, which had been described as a crucifix or cross" and that "2,000 year old footprints carved in solid black rock at Roza Bal tomb show how crucifixion wounds would appear asymmetrical. This would only be obvious to those who actually witnessed the crucifixion or saw the unusual scar pattern" And that was what I meant by material coming into the page (sans source) that looks like it came from your book. By the way, I noticed that the new version of your book is called "Roza Bal: Beyond the Da Vinci Code". That was an interesting item to note. History2007 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your condolences. he died 3 days ago-oops 4 days ago. I have been editing at Wiki to get my mind off the funeral when ever possible. He was 43 years old. Now about the book...the quotes you mentioned from my book is information contained in most every book about Roza Bal. It is a description of the interior. I didn't invent that description. It exists. Fida Hassnain asked me to co-author a book with him, which became the Roza Bal, Beyond the DaVinci Code". I believe he produced the same book under several titles in India and here. I only contributed the last section about DNA. The book got several good reviews, then one really bad review by someone from a forum, and has not sold since then. Have you noticed I have made no effort to request that book be included here? I only ask that the links we original settled on years ago remain, and that includes my book and web site (Not originally submitted by me). Meanwhile, on 12-12-12- I released the final revision of my book, "Jesus in Kashmir.." It is a complete overhaul and rewrite with the most emphasis on cultural terrorism in an effort to save the tombs. A week ago it was noted in the Press that the tomb of Joseph the Patriarch was again attacked and desecrated. I point to the similar fate awaiting Roza Bal. The page about Roza Bal was reduced to a mere 4 small paragraphs at Wiki, at a time when Roza Bal was in the news worldwide- even as mentioned in the Lonely Planet article. Yet when people come to Wiki, they get nothing of value about Roza Bal. But the history of Roza bal is complex and interesting, and goes back 2,000 years.Information posted here could help make people aware of the danger its in. Way back when the TOJ group posted their links here, my book and web site were included. We collaborated a lot to get the latest information out to the world. I was fresh from India and knew the situation better than anyone. I shared that info freely and several web sites, films, news articles, and books spun off from my original contributions. It only became controversial when I personally tried to contribute to update links and expand information about the tomb. Now it has escalated into some personal war and regardless what I contribute, it will be deleted..I thank you for reading the book. I hope you got that info from the actual book and not one of the pirated sites online. If I can help you obtain the latest (and definitely last) revision, please let me know. I believe the Roza Bal tomb is the real grave of Jesus and I believe all the evidence supports that view. Anything that can be done here at Wiki and elsewhere to draw people towards that evidence and the true history of the tomb is valuable and helpful. Editors who delete all this out are not helpful. If I am going to be barred and fought at every step, then someone else will step in and make the Roza Bal page the very best it can be, even if that means continued battles with Doug Weller, who may regard every contributor as my grandchild or paid accomplice. Believe it or not, that is not always true. There are others who feel the same as I do and are allowed to express their support. It's not always some evil collusion. Dragging it down only for personal vendettas is just plain wrong, and that's exactly what's been happening here. It appears that Doug Weller is determined to draw me into some major COI where he feels justified in deleting or blocking me...He certainly is trying hard to do just that, not for COI but for personal reasons. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this page before and resisted editing. I haven't edited any of the Jesus-in-India pages for 2 years I think. The various Kerala-Jewish origins and Thomas-in-India ones already being less WP:FRINGE. This article is in dire need of calling in PiCo to scythe it. And please be warned (Suzanne Olsson) WP:NPA are not acceptable. The issue here is WP policies, please don't personalize it. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Structure first, section theories by chronology; add Levi H. Dowling remove Aziz Kashmir

I first removed the giant unsourced 28 Jan content. Then sectioned the remaining content and put the actual structure section at the top. Then I added J. Gordon Melton. Added Levi H Dowling whom Melton mentions. Then I removed Aziz Kashmir - can't see anything to suggest that this has any WP:RS characteristics or who the author is. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A very good restructuring. The only other thing to clarify would be if Notovitch mentioned Roza Bal or not. I am not sure if he did. I can check, but you probably already know. And did the idea start in the 18th or 19th century? I do not know of an 18th century item.

By the way, I wish you would just add the same logical structure to the Lost years of Jesus page, because the lede is now stable, one section there has many un-ref tags on it. So the two may get cleaned up together. That page is now semi-protected after some other brouhaha, so can be handled.

And based on your edits, I think the tags can be removed now, since you have already cleaned it up pretty well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge

Propose the merge of 2006 above be enacted. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

'Merge I also support just doing the merge. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I also support the merge, and have for years! Without Roza Bal there can be no need to mention YUz Asaf. In Afghanistan the name means "son of Joseph" by tradition. This should be included as there is no other possible definition. I would also mention the original tomb was painted a shade of blue mentioned specifically in Jewish texts only, and used by them to this day. It was obtained by mixing color from a local plant but I dont recall which one. I would also include the relics, there were approximately 5 or 6. They appear in photos in most of the books written about the tomb. They include the Rod, the written history maintained by the Rishis, who copied the original over every few centuries to preserve them (this ancient document is now in possession of the Government of India). The Rod was placed in a special extra long casket that was also original to the tomb. This is vital info as Hebrews buried anything associated with 'God' in cemeteries and tombs rather than discard anything, which was (and is) considered a sacrilege). Of course the carved feet with the crucifixion wounds would be the most critical relic, especially because the wounds match the Shroud of Turin. This is what leads people to conclude there is a connection with Jesus. The "sword in the stone", the wooden cup, the carved "alter", and the sarcophagus itself should all be included as original relics, plus the fact that the actual bodies are under the tomb floor, not within the tomb itself. Reference goes back to the 18th century, when the tomb was mentioned by the Grand Mufti in 1747.This was in regard to wrangling over ownership of the tomb which was already generating huge sums of money from pilgrims. It was then mentioned that it was the tomb of a prophet identified as Yuz Asaf (son of Joseph) who is also identified with crucifixion wounds. The Book of the Bee is considered Apocrypha but contains details about the Rod in Jesus' possession, and dates from the 4th century. The Bahavia Mahapurana contains reference from the First Century, not naming Jesus specifically, only identifying him as a prophet. I would include as many supporting books as possible, even Aziz Kashmiri because although not widely available, his book can be located in India once people are made aware of it. He died 2 years ago at a very advanced age. His book is valuable for several reasons, including mention of a grave for King David's son nearby. This matches the Biblical description of the son (or was it grandson? I have two look again). No one else to my knowledge has included this valuable information and I know some recent researchers in India are investigating that now.

The page looks really wonderful now. The pictures and film links should be added. I wrote to India Film Board and asked for their suggestions. As soon as I get a reply, I'll let you know. I thank you so much for putting the effort in to this page. Although mention is included that some authors write this is a legend on the scale of Joseph of Arimathea, I disagree and believe they did not do diligence in investigating the age of the tomb, the position of the Government of India, and the supporting relics and documents. For fair and balanced reporting these must be included so people have a clear understanding why the theory exists at all. The relics of Roza Bal should take center stage. They are more conclusive evidence even than anything found by Tabor and Jacobovici! Who ever helped and did this page over, thank you. You are hugged and blessed. If you would like a copy of my (worthless self published) book which contains all this information as well, please contact me and I'll get it, or the EBook version to you. Thank You. Thank You. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just send a large wire transfer to In ictu oculi, department of page improvement, Republic of Misplaced Pages. He did very well. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: