User talk:71.134.181.190

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edit to Rape

Hi. You (or someone else using the IP address that you're now reading Wikipedia from) recently added the words "rape trauma syndrome" to the Rape article. I took them out again, because it looks bad in an encyclopedia article (and does not really inform the reader) to have a section whose contents does not even form a complete sentence. However, if you would write a bit of more coherent text on this subject, which Wikipedia seems to lack currently, it would be most welcome. Henning Makholm 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salem Witch Trials, etc.

(adapted from the talk-page of "Yesmaammm" -- Lonewolf BC 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

I don't mean to "bite the newcomer", but that "rape-trauma" thesis you restored on the Salem Witch Trials article seems to be "original research". As such, it is not allowed in Wikipedia. If you want to include it, you must find a reliable source that has published the hypothesis. In this case, that likely would have to be an article published in a scholarly journal, by a historian or perhaps by a historically interested psychiatrist or psychologist. Contrary to our edit summary, Wikipedia cannot treat the material in question as "...important to understanding likely causes..." of the "bewitchments" (and the consequent trials), without a reputable source that proposes the cause suggested by that material.

The style of that material is also unencyclopedic and otherwise troublesome, whereas it relies upon innuendo, and distorted the pre-existing text. So, firstly, it needs a reliable source if it is to be re-introduced. Secondly, if it is re-introduced on the basis of a such a source, it needs to be discussed in a straight-forward, scholarly manner, not slipped into the present text in the form of little insinuations. If I am not mistaken, "rape trauma", as a psychiatric phenomenon apart from Post-traumatic Stress, is itself a moot notion. That would present another obstacle to re-introducing material relating to "rape trauma" into this or other articles.

Speaking of which last, I infer that you are the same editor as "64.142.94.174" and "71.134.181.190", who introduced alike, and likewise troublesome matter into a range of articles. That sort of cross-article point-of-view pushing is not kosher on Wikipedia -- the more so when the opinion being pushed lacks a reliable-source basis.

Lonewolf BC 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I can only assume that you are the same editor who has been repeatedly inserting material of the kind I wrote of above into the article on the Salem witch trials, and other articles, from:

Please stop this now. You must provide a reference for that thesis, or you may not put it into Wikipedia articles. If it is your original thesis (as I infer that it is) then you must get it published elsewhere (and not just anywhere, but by some scholarly publisher of good repute) before you can introduce it here. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Beyond that, what I said before about the need for an encyclopedic writing-style. Again, please cease and desist.

You are, of course, most welcome to contribute to Wikipedia constructively, in ways that do no break its fundamental policies. -- Lonewolf BC 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)