User talk:Filll/Archive 21

User:Filll/AGF Challenge

Interesting. Do people just do these exercises for themselves? I'd be curious to see answers people actually come up with. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I havent unleashed them on anyone yet, although Durova did one of them (verbally). I am curious to know what people would say as well, and compare responses between people, or maybe have some multiple choice responses eventually and poll people.

Some of these exercises are supposed to present people with a dilemma that is a bit tricky. Some are supposed to drive home the point that it is impossible to make everyone happy. Some of the exercises are meant specifically for people who I hear constantly claim that it is bad faith to insist that people follow the rules. Some are meant for those who suggest that everyone follows the rules and the mean old WP admins are just too harsh with people and unreasonable. Some are meant to probe the thoughts of those who say that WP rules are terribly restrictive and should be changed.

Some exercises are meant to focus attention on what sort of document we are building, and what sorts of information people should reasonably expect to find in an encyclopedia, and how reliable it should be. Many people claim that rules are bad, or that rules should be bent in one case or another just for them, or that the Wikipedia standard interpretation of the rules is bad. These exercises are all drawn from cases where various editors were incensed at the way the rules were being applied by WP admins and other WP editors.

It is always easier to be objective about a situation where one is not engaged personally, with lots of feelings involved. It is also easier to see the situation boiled down to its bare essentials, rather than try to follow the dispute across many kilobytes of discussion and many pages and many hours, or days, or months. Situations also can get clouded by side issues and distractions like arguments over CIVIL; these are stripped out of the exercises for clarity.

If we developed some standard responses as part of WP training, that might be useful as well, possibly. We could even broadcast what responses WP would suggest and prefer from editors and admins in a case that looked like "exercise number 3a", to remove more ambiguity and confusion in these situations for admins and editors and critics, and mollify some of the complaints from critics. Of course, some of these exercises might need a bit more "sanitizing" and anonymizing and copyediting before they are used more extensively, but they represent a start.--Filll (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you take notes? I'd be especially interested in Durova's approach at that! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Also, did I mention I love questions like these? :-)

No, I unfortunately did not take notes. Durova gave a very detailed and complete answer however. I am sure that we could persuade her to write some answers for these exercises, however. I would love to get them from a wide range of people, and to stimulate debate and discussion in an atmosphere that is less fraught with drama than one finds normally on an article or user talk page, or in some sort of administrative proceeding like an RfC or an Arbcomm case.--Filll (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am undecided about how to present these and to who, exactly. Durova "interviewed" me for her blog, but I do not know if the article about these exercises is in her blog yet or not.--Filll (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since our PowerToy discussion, this page stayed watchlisted and I came across this topic. I would love to answer the questions posed, but, the problem I see is that would be idealism. If faced with the same situation in reality, I might not react the same way. There is no guarantee what state of mind I might be when I am presented with such situations - I might be involved in a strenuous trying-to-get-POV-warriors-to-see-reason session or something else that has made me frustrated beyond-wits or sanity. That would significantly lower the threshold of how much good faith I can assume. So, such exercises will be as futile as assuming someone does not assume good faith seeing just an action or two of his. --soum ^talk 14:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean you wouldn't always be rational? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rational? Yes. Bitey? Can't say! While my intentions will always remain same, how politically correct my words (if I start dialog with the editors) will be depends on the situation. Take for example the Arrow of Time situation, if I am fighting a losing battle with a dozen of articles-should-promote-only-my-POV-no-other-reason-is-worthy-of-existing editors, how long can I be polite to the Arrow-of-Time editor is severely diminished. Given his actions, I might retort with a go-f***-yourself-ish answer. Does that mean I am mean, rude, arrogant, abusive and bitey? Converse with me rationally and see for yourself! Many of the experts actually spend a lot of time painfully finding references and cross checking their knowledge is correct and then formulating it the way it fits out policies. Not being given an inch of respect - or worse, accused of something they didn't even think of - does land a heavy blow in their belief in the virtues they think they were promoting, and shakes their foundation in the wikipedia policies itself. It takes a much longer time to heal, and if you (a generic you) do not assume good faith with them, the chances of them unilaterally assuming good faith is slim, if not non-existent. --soum ^talk 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the goal here is to try to identify some "Wikipedia Best Practices" for dealing with difficult situations. Of course, in the heat of battle one might say or do something nonoptimal. But can we think of good ways or standard ways to handle these situations? Can we start a dialogue on whether our policies should be changed in some cases?--Filll (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can think of something. But its still the same - instruction creep. When somebody is not in a position to WP:AGF, what would you think would seem a better choice Wikipedia:5 Steps to Anger Management or WP:IAR (though whether or not the latter will be invoked in the spirit of the rule is a different question altogether)? --soum ^talk 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what the right approach is. But I want to open the discussion.--Filll (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@Filll As to how or where to present these... heh, how much traffic can you handle? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question. It partly depends on the format in which they are presented. I have two ideas:

• ask each person taking the AGF Challenge to copy the page to their own space, and then answer the questions, and provide a link back to their answer page on the AGF Challenge talk page (for example, User:Kim Bruning/AGF Challenge Answers placed on User_talk:Filll/AGF_Challenge).

• Make a set of multiple choice links at the end of each challenge exercise that would take the reader to a subpage of the AGF Challenge. For example, after the Library exercise, one could be given choices like
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Put this article up for deletion
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Try to improve this article
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Contact the author of this article and ask for more information to include
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Warn the author of this article not to place such nonsense in Wikipedia
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Merge this article with the article for the town of Smithville, Iowa
  • User:Filll/AGF Challenge/Other

Someone responding to the Challenge could then place their signature on one or more of these choices, and possibly discuss the merits of each choice on the talk pages of each option. Of course, if the problem is too difficult, they could just ignore them all and move on to the next exercise. After a few people responded, we would start to see some interesting information emerging I suspect. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to replace the standard questions at requests for adminship, actually... O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! I never thought of that. Wow that would get a HUGE number of responses for sure.--Filll (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The questions did remind me of my RfA. :-) --soum ^talk 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

<Scratches head> Of course... that might get different answers than you'd get from say an anonymous survey, due to the fact that people would have to take political considerations into account... hmmm ... --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, they're too sensible. For RfA you need questions like "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. Is it eligible for speedy deletion?" Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here goes nothing... --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is worth a try ! I will be adding other reply options to the exercises. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The coolest response so far is this link to a totally different (and somewhat strange) set of questions User:MessedRocker tells me about: http://voice-of-resolution.blogspot.com/2008/03/question-drill-for-potential.html --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever else, that's gone and given it some exposure.. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Original intended purposes of the AGF Challenge

I originally envisioned this document as having several potential uses:

(1) a way to stimulate discussions with those who believe that wikilove and AGF and CIVIL will solve all problems.

(2) A set of concrete realistic examples that people can discuss instead of these vague generalities and theoretical situations, or getting embroiled in actual ongoing tendentious situations, which many are loathe to do

(3) A way to engage those who have never actually had their hands dirty on contentious issues, and demonstrate to them how ambiguous and difficult these can be

(4) A way to collect data and suggestions from those who abstractly claim that they have better techniques than anyone else, but never demonstrate them or show them. Let's ferret out these supposedly better techniques they are in possession of, examine them, and if they are reasonable, try them in these sorts of difficult situations

(5) Possibly eventually turn this into a poll or survey and collect data about attitudes from a wide range of editors as a research project

(6) Most editors who complain about Wikipedia have a blind spot about their own particular hot button issue. However, when they consider the full range of situations, they often have attitudes that are quite different than the attitudes they express on topics in which they have a personal vested interest. This set of exercises can be part of a tool for studying this phenomenon, and possibly bringing this to these editor's attention as a training tool.

(7) There are repeated calls from User: Kim Bruning and others to train admins better in how to handle difficult situations. This could form part of a nucleus of training exercises and instructions for new admins.

(8) Discussions around these exercises could help to focus attention on some of our vague and ambiguous policies

(9) A way for internal and external critics to contemplate specific cases, suitably shortened and sanitized, presented objectively. It is easy to criticize others in the abstract. It is complicated to address real ongoing disputes with many people involved and many kilobytes of discussion to look at. This lets the critics focus on specific examples so they can offer their suggestions in a more concrete context.--Filll (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to get someone like Jason Scott Sadofsky to take the AGF Challenge. Plus those on WR. --Filll (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

While you know I applaud your goals, in working toward them recently you have created a lot of heat in addition to light, even in the face of several requests for the latter. Now, however, I admit I am impressed with this innovative and constructive idea. Just a suggestion: keep the scenarios as diverse as possible to undercut any future insinuations that you are using the page and any responses as a de facto consensus builder for any one particular content dispute. I hope you can see the merit of that suggestion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I want to make these as different from real content disputes as possible to reduce the chances of this. So they might need more sanitizing. Which can you recognize as real content disputes? I will make them more obscure.

Also, if you or any of your friends have suggestions for further "exercises", let me know. This is just a first crack at these.--Filll (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I only recognize one that might be a sanitized version of a conflict I have seen discussed, but whose article I have never myself read, so I cannot say for sure. But even if so, IMO diversity is a better solution than sanitizing as it would be more widely applicable across the project, and it would reduce the chance of subtly altering the nature of the issues via sanitizing. My motive was purely preventative, by the way; no actual issues now with its content.

I've watchlisted it so will be constantly reminded of it, so if inspiration comes I'll bring it here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Take the AGF Challenge

Go to User:Filll/AGF Challenge. There are directions at the top of the page. Answers can be provided in essay form, in multiple choice format or anonymously.--Filll (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Filll! I just stumbled across your challenge. I'm not sure if you have a set of "correct answers" or not, though I would be curious to see what your thinking was. I just took the MC format, and I say it gave me a great deal to think about. Best of luck, I hope more editors, especially administrators, will get a chance to look at this and think some. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Filll. Thanks for inviting me to take the AGF Challenge. You'll see that I've posted my results. I'm going to let my curiosity get the better of me and ask you, why did you choose me? I'm new to Wikipedia, and don't believe that I've been too involved with what's been going on. How did my name even stand out to be added, or was it a mass invitation? Infonation101 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Next Friday (16'th)

Sorry if I miscommunicated but the trip is on the 16'th, not yesterday. Sorry if I mistyped. Thanks for asking though. Saksjn (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

You were an enormous help yesterday; thank you very much for bringing your experience with Skype to NTWW (and for all the good Wikipedia input you have). These have been wonderful sessions in good part thanks to you. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

challenge taken

Ok, I've given it my best shot. Do I get a barnstar now or what?! Oh, wait:

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thank you for the AGF Challenge. Dorftrottel (talk) 03:07, April 13, 2008

Dorftrottel (complain) 03:07, April 13, 2008

Indeed. A very good idea. Do let me know if you publish results later on. I'm done my ansewrs, but I'm not going to look at the entire set of answers by other now, but will try and keep an eye on all this - it looks very interesting. Have you ever seen the set of manual of style exercises written by User:Tony1? Found them. They are linked from within User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Filll. Thanks for the invitation. I hope it's the kind of thing I can get to later, because I'm hopelessly backed up with things to do right at the moment.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sorry I did not see your note until too late, but yes certainly keep me informed and would be happy to join in sometime. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

continuation from OrangeMarlin's page

Since OrangeMarlin archived it and you indicated that you were looking for an answer:

The difference is, that my law school/military status has absolutely no bearing on whether my edits are more worthy of inclusion than anyone elses. Unlike your situation, where you've used it to evidence some sort of superiority in editing privilege, e.g. here. The concept of having experts on Wikipedia is long established, see WP:EXPERT (which failed to gain consensus) but even in the proposed versions, it has never been the case that experts have any special editing rights or can pull rank on someone. So, it's perfectly acceptable for you to say "In my X number of masters degrees I've never seen this happen before", it's uncivil for you to say "Whatever, I've got X graduate degrees in the field, I know better", and it's OR to say "X is the case, trust me, because I have X number of graduate degrees". Assuming you understand that, there's no further issue. I fail to see where warning about that is in any way a personal attack against you, especially given the tone of my warning. Nor was OrangeMarlin's post appropriate, whether it was directed at me or Al'i, no matter people's editing history. Civility is non-negotiable; it is non-waivable; and it does not fail to apply based on another user's past, either real or perceived.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly compelling counselor (allegedly). Did not even respond to all the points I raised previously. Do I have to put it back on my talk page? My goodness. --Filll (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Durova interviews me about the User:Filll/AGF Challenge

Take a look here.--Filll (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not much on her answers though ^^;; oh well. In other news: [1]. It seems this user won't make it though, unfortunately. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I will prevail on her and some of our more experienced and senior editors in the controversial areas to weigh in after others have had a chance. At this point, more than 30 have answered at least one of the exercises. The one exercise answer that Durova gave to me verbally was impressive; very detailed, very sophisticated, and obviously the result of considerable experience in these areas. I think if we revealed the answers of the cadre of really hardened editors from the trenches before others, it might affect things, or bias them in ways I would like to avoid.

Durova is helping me with the 2nd and 3rd generation of exercises for the AGF Challenge. I have about 20 new exercises that are in rough draft form at this point.--Filll (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Darn:

[2] (S)he decided to use the multiple choice option. Not what I was hoping for :-(.

Multiple choice not so good for RFA. :-( --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For RfA, or really for any serious analysis, one should write a little, and not just go with a short quick answer. I provided those multiple choice answers to try to stimulate more people to respond. However, the best answers of course are thoughtful and longer, and probably combine several different options and approaches and are much more sophisticated than what appears in the "multiple choice" section. I would wonder about how much thought a candidate has put into these things if they just choose one of the multiple choice answers, particularly if they do not explain it a bit. But that in itself is useful information about the candidate and how they think and how they will handle these kinds of problems.--Filll (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting approach, though I feel I should give fair warning then. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here you go

[[3]] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF challenge

I answered your questions here. I do get something for this, right? John Carter (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A gold star. Plus the communities undying gratitude for your assistance and feedback. Plus recognition and respect of your friends and colleagues.--Filll (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I answered. Please could someone design a barnstar for answering, as I only have two or three lol:) I enjoyed it and am intrigued about what conclusions you'll draw at the end, or what results we all give. Merkin's mum 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for creating and enacting this process. I'm intrigued to see the results. (I've posted my answers.) – Scartol • Tok 17:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh, thanks for the barnstar lol:) Merkin's mum 18:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

AGFThis user took the AGF Challenge

--Filll (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, after I took the challenge I posted this userbox to my page, but I made a little alteration. I figure that because you are the one that created this box, I should show you. Hope you're cool with that.

AGFThis user took the AGF Challenge
See the Results

--Infonation101 (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I am not an expert with infoboxes, so any change anyone wants to make is fine with me. I was experimenting a bit with color myself and I think a yellow background stands out better, but anything people want is fine. After all, this is a wiki!

By the way, thanks for taking the challenge. I am working on the next generation of "exercises". --Filll (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me. I haven't been on Wiki very long so I was surprised when I was invited. These questions are great for introspection into how one would edit. Infonation101 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eventually I hope that a suite of these exercises and responses would be useful as training exercises.--Filll (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the idea, and thank you specifically for taking the time to actually develop something of this magnitude. Infonation101 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF Challenge

I've attempted most of it. I need a little more time to work on the two most difficult questions, which I'll probably complete tomorrow. My answers so far can be found here. Walton^One 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Filll. How are you? I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Please see the article. Your help will be appreciated. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled

Check your e-mail. I've sent you a scan of a review. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy Day

Infonation101 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Fill, I was going back through my contributions and I saw the stupid template that I posted on your talk page early March for a personal attack or something like that. Sorry about that. It's taken me a little while to get used to WP style (especially that it's not a blog), but I hope that I can continue to improve and have the support of yourself and other long time contributers to WP. Cheers. Infonation101 (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up AGF

EVula (talk · contribs · count) has begun writing an AGF essay: see User:EVula/opining/on the Assumption of Good Faith. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. The more the better! I think we have more than 60 responses now, all told.--Filll (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may be permited a moment of levity...

Bensteinian Rhapsody Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been slapped around a bit with a picture of Queen Victoria

We are not amused.

Naughty! ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I have to have some fun here. And there is not much that is more fun than a description of intelligent design as a "turd stuck in the U bend" by an editor on Nature magazine, or an offer by Premise Media to reward moviegoers with a free Ben Stein bobblehead doll ! You have to admit, this is more fun than the Dover trial.--Filll (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

bobble heads

Wow! the ridiculousness of of a Ben Stien bobble head doll just makes me smile. Saksjn (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they used to feature one on his television show, Win Ben Stein's Money.--Filll (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I'll do it! I've got one question though: Am I the lab rat? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did it. Now what do I do? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Physics Portal Idea

I fear this is a dead subject but....

I have this great insight: A subject as large as physics cannot have only one "Table Of Contents". It needs MULTIPLE TOCs, each organized in different ways. kinda like Yahoo shopping results sorted by different criteria. The sorts for physics: - by history -by "subject" [whatever that means] -by "founding experiment" [see my comment on the physics portal talk page].

Are you aware that some social philosopher has predicted the decline and fall of wikipedia just as is apparently happening? Very sad.

If you have the time, you can answer me on page "The RealHRW" - my old user name which I messed up. -Harry Wertmuller HarryWertM (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked but I couldn't find it. Anyway, people have been predicting that Wikipedia will fail ever since it was first started. I think that the idea of multiple indices is not a bad idea.--Filll (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My Portal idea is detailed on WikipediaTalk:WikiProjectPhysics. I was a little confused by all the wikiwiki talktalk phyphys pages. HarryWertM (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions on philosophy?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you don't mind, I would like to ask you some philosophical questions. I just wanted to ask if you are ok with that first.---G.T.N. (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I guess so. You have a pretty sophisticated set of user and talk pages for a new user.--Filll (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you. I try to learn as quickly as possible... I can't take continuous embarassment! :) My first question is kind of a touchy one, some people get offended by it, but I'm not implying by it that you lack moral or ethical sense. Well, I'll just ask. How do you account for morality in a world that is purely physical? (If I'm wrong in thinking you believe in a purely physical world, let me know. I just read some of what you said about creationism/evolution and assummed.) I do believe that altruism and ethics and morality and similar human behaviors are acquired through evolution; they are what give us an advantage to survive as a species. There was a great lecture and discussion of this at Beyond Belief in 2006; you can do a google search and find the video on the internet. This is a slightly controversial area, even among the mainstream of Ethics and Sociology and Psychology however. When you talk about believing in the "physical world", that is a very complicated question. I am not sure I believe in only the "physical world", because our very limited senses and facilities are not able to probe very much of it. As J. B. S. Haldane said, the universe is not only stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know. I guess I do not believe in metaphysical naturalism, but I believe in methodological naturalism, at least for the time being, as I understand those terms. Look at my worldview: You scored as Postmodernist. Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis. Postmodernist 81% Idealist 75% Cultural Creative 63% Existentialist 56% Modernist 50% Fundamentalist 38% Materialist 38% Romanticist 31% created with QuizFarm.com --Filll (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC) So morality is not real, it's just a byproduct of evolution, and so we are not actually required to follow it? By the way, I was just looking at UU, and found it rather vague. I understand it's about seeking truth, but it seems everyone just believes whatever until they find something better. Is that where you're at right now? ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Of course "morality" is "real", depending on what you define as "morality" and "real". It is spatially and temporally dependent however. Different cultures have different standards for what is moral and this changes over time, obviously. Slavery was once viewed as completely moral, but that is a rare position in the modern world. Obviously, the standards for morality have changed. Things in one society that are quite moral are viewed as quite immoral in another culture. How many of the 613 mitzvot are viewed as immoral now? How many were viewed as immoral at the time they were first written? What about the other 5500 religions on the earth at the moment? What about the tens of thousands (if not more) religions that ever existed, all with their own versions of morality, many of which are now extinct? And many of which disagreed with each other? I think that if certain moral codes are useful for survival, they continue. If they are not, they do not. The capacity for morality is built in to humans by evolutionary pressures; those that did not have that capacity did not make it. You are only "required" to follow the moral code of your society if you want to avoid the consequences of not following it, and you own internal compass/conscience which has been placed in you by nature and nurture compels you to. And UU's have their own view of the world which is above all, tolerant, which is more than I can say for many others that I have encountered. The less tolerant are on the way to their own destruction, in my estimation. I believe that everyone is allowed to believe what they want. Those who want to impose their beliefs on others by force (like many fundamentalist Christians or Moslems, for example) are an embarassment to humanity. The United States is a great nation because it tried to get away from that sort of thinking, but for some reason it still thrives here among a certain segment of the population that have not really understood how shameful these views are. Down that path is the path to hell. They believe they are being good Muslims or good Christians, but as near as I can tell, they are the exact opposite of what their faith really aspires to. Of course, they are the ones who scream the loudest about how wonderful and religious and moral and ethical they are, while they commit the worst imaginable sins. Really pretty disgusting, frankly. --Filll (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC) By the way, I'm taking the challenge. ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Ok.--Filll (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC) While I may agree about terroristic Moslems and the really crazy Christians being an embarrassment to humanity, I'm not sure I agree about the U.S. The U.S. was headed on its way up the fastest when it was most Christian, an less of course you are referring to to Deist views of some founders, then I'll have to agree. But if it's only a cultural thing what's wrong with imposing their views on others? And what's wrong with "sins" they commit? And more importantly, what's wrong with being hypocritical? It's annoying and probably self-destructive in the end (assuming those muslims don't eliminate us and, well, survival of the fittest), but then again, so is smoking to some people, but we don't necessarily say that's evil. As for religious freedom- I definitely agree it should be important, that cuts the feet right out from under us if we are to say they shouldn't act like that. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 2008 (UTC) Well I beg to differ. The US was founded on religious tolerance. It was not founded as a "Christian nation" or some other such nonsense. Look at the Treaty of Tripoli for example. And if you want to live in a world where someone can impose their will on you by force, be my guest. But that is not the world I want to live in. And if you try to do it to me, I do not believe you will find it a very advantageous proposition. If you were brought up as a Christian, which I suspect you were, I believe it violates every tenet of Christianity as well as human decency, human rights and common sense. If you believe that fundamentalists are fine, then you go right on believing that. I am afraid that I would respectfully disagree with you, and I believe I am joined in that sentiment by many others. But you can believe what you want. As long as you do not impose it on others or hurt others with your beliefs. And that includes hypocrisy. It is when it does not stay localized that it causes problems that need to be dealt with. I can see this is rapidly turning into nonsensical polemics and tendentious argumentation. I believe what I believe. I was raised this way. My parents were raised this way. My grandparents were raised this way. And so on. You can believe what you want. I will not impose my beliefs on you, and you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) I apologize! I didn't mean it to come out quite like that. The people I talk about philosophy with tend to get very agressive and take little offense, so I'm a bit low on ediquette. I don't at all believe someone should be able to impose their beliefs on anybody by force. I was simply wondering how, if morality is relative, we can call that wrong. The thing is I subscribe to an unchangable morality, so I can say that I am right and they are wrong. I have always wondered what a moral relativist's(if I'm using the term correctly) solution is to the problem. I meant no offence, and if I seemed to be going into one of those useless arguments, I assure you it was entirely unintentional. If you're still willing to answer, I'd like to here your explanation, and I'll watch my phrasing next time, but if your not, just let me know and I'll stop asking. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) You think that you subscribe to an unchanging morality. Well maybe. But at most, unchanging over your lifetime. Centuries ago, your forebearers had different moral standards than you do. With probably 100 percent certainty. Thousands of years ago, standards were very different than they are today. 100,000 years ago, even more different. And things will continue to change. The evidence is pretty clear.--Filll (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Don't mind me, but I would like to weigh in here. First of, "So morality is not real, it's just a byproduct of evolution" Actually, Evolutionists don't really have a concept of right and wrong, because that would iinterfere with the "survival of the fittest" view. Also, if you look at 97% of the founding fathers, they were, in fact, Theists. Also, A world where religous, political, and scientific views are forced upon citizens by a relatively small percentage of its population is rightfully called oligarchy. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC) As I said before, why not listen to the Beyond Belief 2006 lectures on the topic. And I also said it is not settled yet, but it is an area of active research. The nonsense about "evolutionists dont really have a concept of right and wrong because that would interfere with the 'surival of the fittest' view' is just ridiculous, and reveals massive ignorance on several fronts, not the least of which is that the term "evolutionists" is highly offensive. And from my reading, I am pretty sure that your estimate of 97% is not just a little bit wrong. I will also point out that there is a massive difference between a "theist" and a "deist". And where is someone forcing religious views on you? Anyone come to your church to scream at you? Anyone forcing your church to pay taxes ? Anyone telling you what church to go to? Anyone fining you for not going to a church? Anyone fining you for not praying daily in a certain way or reading your bible daily or going to prayer meetings? Anyone threatening you with the death penalty for your religious beliefs or for apostasy? Anyone forcing you to vote for the democratic party or the communist party or the green party at the point of a gun? Anyone requiring you to believe the earth is round or that red light refracts less than blue light? You are free to fail science class if you want right? You are free to leave high school with no diploma correct? You are free to go to a private school if you want that teaches nonstandard science even, are you not? I can go on and on and on. So give me a break. Your rights are not even close to restricted.--Filll (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Did I say they were? No. Also, let think about this. 53 people signed the constitution; 3 weren't Theists. I'm pretty sure that's pretty close to 97%. Also, that does not reveal ignorance on several fronts; it simply states that if man evolved from a pile of mud, and there wasn't a supreme being to show us right from wrong, then we each could decide what is right and what is wrong. Then going by that, right would be anything that would make sure we survive (ie. murder. Get rid of competition; increase your chances of survival). BTW, did you know that a vast majority of America's laws are based on the Ten Commandments? You know, those laws given to Moses by a supreme being (named God). I will also have you that I did not say we were living in an oligarchy; I said that a government wheere views are forced upon citizens is an oligarchy. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that you e-mail me. RC-0722 247.5/1 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Ok, thisn a little out of hand. I'll just go ahead and stop asking.---G.T.N. (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Since this is my talk page, I reserve the right to respond, if that is all right with you. Did I say they were? No. Did you strongly imply it? Yes. Do fundamentalist Christians constantly scream about it and claim it? Yes. Do fundamentalist Christians regularly throw tantrums about it? Yes. In fact, the article for the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which we encountered each other at, even has this as a theme, doesnt it? Well yes. Also, let think about this. 53 people signed the constitution; 3 weren't Theists. I'm pretty sure that's pretty close to 97%. Well let me think about this. Look up Theism. And look up Deism. Depending on how you pick your terms, I think you will see that theism is not the same as deism, at least to many people. Also, that does not reveal ignorance on several fronts; it simply states that if man evolved from a pile of mud, and there wasn't a supreme being to show us right from wrong, then we each could decide what is right and what is wrong. This is just a creationist and fundamentalist mantra, repeated ad infinitum with no thought involved. You heard a preacher say it from his pulpit. So you repeat it, without even understanding what you just said. Repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat. It is nonsense. You are free to do so, but when you start using it as a weapon against others, then there is a problem. Then going by that, right would be anything that would make sure we survive (ie. murder. Get rid of competition; increase your chances of survival). Well you are wrong aren't you? That is not what makes you most likely to survive. You think that you are more likely to survive if you just kill all your competition? You never heard of cooperation? Even in "godless" societies, if you decide to kill your competition, there will be consequences. Why? BTW, did you know that a vast majority of America's laws are based on the Ten Commandments? Did you know that our legal system traces its roots back to Hammurabi, who was actually a ruler in IRAQ!! And many of the Ten Commandments are common to other faiths, including Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and so on. And in fact, we misinterpret and misapply the ten commandments, or decalogue. And there is more than one version of the ten commandments and the versions disagree with each other. And there are also the 613 Mitzvot. And the 7 Noahide laws, also in the bible. And if you recall, Jesus was asked which commandment was most important, and in his answer he included the Golden rule. Interestingly, I have had about 5 arguments with Fundamentalist "Christians" (and heard a sermon or two by Fundamentalist "Christians") who claim Jesus never endorsed the Golden Rule and in fact the Golden Rule appears no place in the bible (which is wrong; it is in there a few times I believe). The reason they do not want to "love their neighbor as themselves" is that it gets in the way of hating too much, and their faith is one of loathing and violence and hatred for their fellow man and those who are differen than them. It just feels too good to hate I guess. Funny that they call themselves Christians when they do not follow even the simplest precepts of Christ's teachings, isn't it? And on and on and on...Learn a bit before you start to lecture, ok? You know, those laws given to Moses by a supreme being (named God). Oh really? I will also have you that I did not say we were living in an oligarchy; I said that a government wheere views are forced upon citizens is an oligarchy. I know and you know darn well what you were implying; that the terrible big ugly atheists and seculiarists and scientists are beating up on the poor defenseless weak Christian fundamentalists. Right.... If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that you e-mail me. I suggest I answer you in the manner I see fit. Here on this talk page. Good day.--Filll (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC) All right, you want to have a philosophical discussion right here on your talk page, then I'll do it. Ready? Go. "Did you know that our legal system traces its roots back to Hammurabi" Do you know where the Hammurabi got the laws? From the Ten Commandments. And if the Ten Commandments did not give us our laws, then why are they on the top of the supreme court building? "Oh really?" Don't think they exist? "I know and you know darn well what you were implying; that the terrible big ugly atheists and seculiarists and scientists are beating up on the poor defenseless weak Christian fundamentalists. Right...." No, actually I was refering to Nazism (BTW, which darwinism played a crucial part in). Also, we aren't defensless, as we have a book that is so powerful and strikes so much fear into secularists that they won't allow it into schools. Know what it's called (here it comes)? It's called (he's gonna say it) The Bible. That, my friend, is the perfect Word of God. "And many of the Ten Commandments are common to other faiths, including Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and so on." But they got theirs from ours, as we are the oldest religion in the world. "Learn a bit before you start to lecture, ok?" Well, that was fringing on personal attack. "You never heard of cooperation?" Let's take a well known example of cooperation: Oriental sweetlips and the blue wrasse. Now, the oriental sweetlips has teeth. Those teeth need to be cleaned. That's where the blue wrasse comes in. He swims into the sweetlip's mouth and licks his teeth! Now, you mean to tell me that they learned to do that all by themselves? That means that the Blue wrasse would have to learn to swim into the sweetlips mouth without being afraid, and the sweetlips would have to learn not to chomp down on the blue wrasse. That clearly didn't happen by chance. You watch two dogs and one bone. Think the're gonna share? "This is just a creationist and fundamentalist mantra, repeated ad infinitum with no thought involved. You heard a preacher say it from his pulpit. So you repeat it, without even understanding what you just said. Repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat. It is nonsense." Let's think about this, hmm? It's the same principle as this, "Word x means superificial. But who decided that word x means superficial? Maybe I want word x to mean the color burgundy?" or, "One man's trash is another man's treasure" Same thing, huh? Anything else? RC-0722 247.5/1 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Taking a slight liberty with the facts are we? Well here is a point by point refutation: "Did you know that our legal system traces its roots back to Hammurabi" Do you know where the Hammurabi got the laws? From the Ten Commandments. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Moses lived in the 13th century, BCE. Hammurabi predated Moses, living ca. 1728 – 1686 BC. So a bit hard for Hammurabi to get his laws from Moses, isnt it? Well if you have a reliable source for that, provide it. But I think you will not find one. Even earlier codes of laws that Hammurabi's code might have drawn on include Code of Ur-Nammu and the code of Lipit-Ishtar. Both long long before Moses. Hammurabi's code also includes Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, also known as Lex Talionis or the "Law of Retaliation", which is not part of the decalogue. So obviously although these two might have some relation to each other, they are not identical. And if the Ten Commandments did not give us our laws, then why are they on the top of the supreme court building? I never claimed that the Ten Commandments are not important, or that they did not have some bearing on our legal system. In fact, inside and outside the Supreme Court Building are statues and carvings to 18 "lawgivers" that were important throughout history including Menes (c. 3200 B.C.), Hammurabi (c. 1700s B.C.), Moses (c. 1300s B.C.), Solomon (c. 900s B.C.), Lycurgus (c. 800 B.C.), Solon (c. 638 - 558 B.C.) and Draco (c. 600s B.C.) [4]. There is even a sculpture of Mohammed holding the holy Koran in the Supreme Court Building[5] as one of the 18 law givers. "Oh really?" Don't think they exist?" "I know and you know darn well what you were implying; that the terrible big ugly atheists and seculiarists and scientists are beating up on the poor defenseless weak Christian fundamentalists. Right...." No, actually I was refering to Nazism (BTW, which darwinism played a crucial part in). Interesting how all mainstream scholars seem to disagree with that piece of right wing fundamentalist propaganda.(Talkorigins Claim CA006.1: Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide, Mark Isaak, Index to Creationist Claims, Talkorigins, created 2001-4-29, modified 2005-7-1, © 2006; Creationists for Genocide, Hector Avalos, Talkreason) In fact, you will find a lot more in Mein Kampf that is similar to Martin Luther's On The Jews and Their Lies than you will with On The Origin of Species. Also, we aren't defensless, as we have a book that is so powerful and strikes so much fear into secularists that they won't allow it into schools. Know what it's called (here it comes)? It's called (he's gonna say it) The Bible. That, my friend, is the perfect Word of God. I have no problem allowing the bible in schools. Neither does Richard Dawkins. If you read The God Delusion, Dawkins recommends teaching comparative religion in schools. I agree with him. However, it is the US Constitution that is stopping it. Not me. "And many of the Ten Commandments are common to other faiths, including Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and so on." But they got theirs from ours, as we are the oldest religion in the world. Well too bad most scholars would disagree with that. In particular, Hinduism appears to be far far older. And even from the bible, one can see Judaism is older. And there are many many extinct religions that are even older. Probably a lot of forms of animism are older as well. So please... "Learn a bit before you start to lecture, ok?" Well, that was fringing on personal attack. Riiiight. You know that spurious accusations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations is actually a sanctionable offense? "You never heard of cooperation?" Let's take a well known example of cooperation: Oriental sweetlips and the blue wrasse. Now, the oriental sweetlips has teeth. Those teeth need to be cleaned. That's where the blue wrasse comes in. He swims into the sweetlip's mouth and licks his teeth! Now, you mean to tell me that they learned to do that all by themselves? That means that the Blue wrasse would have to learn to swim into the sweetlips mouth without being afraid, and the sweetlips would have to learn not to chomp down on the blue wrasse. That clearly didn't happen by chance. Some massive confusion here. Evolution is not chance; it is the farthest thing from chance. Just because some preacher told you it was chance does not mean that it is chance. Of course, evolution has a stochastic component. Just as the color of your street lamps has a stochastic component (remember quantum mechanics? Einstein did not like the random part and said "God does not play dice with the universe". However, when he tried to prove it, he proved the opposite). Just like fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Sorry; chance exists. Deal with it. Also, symbiosis has well known explanations associated with evolution [6]. Just because a preacher told you some nonsense, does not mean it is correct. Sorry. "This is just a creationist and fundamentalist mantra, repeated ad infinitum with no thought involved. You heard a preacher say it from his pulpit. So you repeat it, without even understanding what you just said. Repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat. It is nonsense." Let's think about this, hmm? It's the same principle as this, "Word x means superificial. But who decided that word x means superficial? Maybe I want word x to mean the color burgundy?" or, "One man's trash is another man's treasure" Same thing, huh? Anything else? As I said repeatedly, you are free to believe anything you want, as long as it does not hurt others, or as long as you do not force others to believe it. I believe in tolerance of everything except intolerance. And hurting others in my book is intolerant. Forcing others to adopt your beliefs is intolerant.--Filll (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) From [7]: I've decided to stop talking with Filll, as it is just provoking him and won't do any good. But if you feel you must, I'm not gonna let you get the worst of this debate. It is amazing to me how being tolerant and allowing anyone else to hold to their own beliefs bothers fundamentalist Christians. What is wrong with tolerance? What is it about fundamentalists that makes them so frantic to hurt others and attack others? Frankly, in my opinion, fundamentalist Christians are about as far from the precepts of real Christianity I can imagine. Here's a few points: 1. Don't let him get on this whole preacher-told-you thing, I'm thinking you're not so stupid that all you know about philosophy/Christianity/creationism is what your preacher told you. That is fine. However, it is a bit peculiar that all of these arguments being used on me are ancient well known creationist and fundamentalist preacher talking points, isn't it? 2. We disagree with the dating methods darwinists use in the first place, so ask him for non-c14-dating evidence (such as historical sequence-of events) if he wants to prove Hammurabi was older. This again is just standard rot spewed by creationists and fundamentalists. There are literally hundreds of dating methods, which all agree with each other. Carbon 14 isotope dating is just one of many methods, some radioactive techniques and stratigraphic methods and so on. And guess what? Techniques involving counting dendochronology and counting rings in coral and benthic sediments and magnetic reversals layers in ice and snow and racemization methods all give the same answers as the radioactive methods. And in addition, I doubt that we rely on any radioactive methods and in particular Carbon 14 dating alone to date the age of Hammurabi's reign which is well documented. As is Moses' life. This is done with the regular scholarly methods. It has nothing to do with "Darwinism" or carbon 14. 3. We don't have a problem with other similiar moralities, we see that as proof that there is one ultimate morality, something he has denied by saying that morality changes, but then he said how a lot of them are so similiar. If you believe that morality has not changed, how do you explain the existence of slavery in the bible or the 613 Mitzvot? Please, this is just the sort of thing someone who does not know about history would claim. 4. We think ours is oldest (although not in its fully revealed form), so other similiar religions ultimately have the same origin. So you claim that Christianity is older than Judaism? Well you are free to believe that if you want, but when you try to impose that belief on others, you are asking for trouble. Plus creating a certain impression of yourself. And there are clearly many many other religions that existed long before that. But I am not trying to convince you; you can believe whatever you want. 5. We disagree with his evolutionist ideas on a scientific basis, so don't let him try and say "science says this" unless he gives you scientific data that can lead to no other conclusion. If you disagree with scientific evidence and its interpretations, that is fine; you are free to do so. When the trouble emerges is when you want to force others to accept your personal beliefs. Also, it is not persecution when others disagree with you. Sorry. It would be persecution if I required you to teach certain doctrines in your church, and did similar things to you. Your church is tax free. You are free to preach whatever you like there, even free of hate crime legislation so your preacher can incite his congregation to violence if he wants (as many fundamentalist preachers do). So do not tell me you are persecuted. 6. If we're all just products of evolution, how can we rely on our "rational" minds? Of course, our rational minds make mistakes all the time. There are auditory and optical illusions where our "rational" mind and senses get fooled. Of course we make mistakes. But the best method we have created so far for understanding the universe well enough to make verifiable predictions is science. Sorry. 7. How is evolution not random? There is nothing behind to order it? You have to do a bit of reading. Remember natural selection? How is natural selection random? And random selection is just one of several mechanisms, not all of which are necessarily fully understood yet. And not all of these mechanisms are random. 8. The human mind is unique in the first place. A mere advanced computer doesn't really recognize or contemplate itself as separate from anything. That's a leap evolution can't explain. Well clearly the human mind has lots in common with our animal cousins. They make tools. They have emotions. They have language. They demonstrate almost all the same behaviors are humans. As far as we know, the only thing that has not been demonstrated yet in animals, but which humans do, is control their own evolution or the evolution of other species, consciously. 9. How did life start in the first place? No one knows. And at most religions like Christianity or Hinduism or Islam or Animism give myths, or magic to tell where life comes from. But experiments have shown that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can be created in the laboratory. So, we will have to see... Evolution can't account for that. Was Darwin's book called On the Origin of Species or On the Origin of Life ? 10. Don't say anything like "the Bible says so," or "everyone knows that." You can say it if you like. But it will not get you very far, given all the contradictions and allegorical accounts in the bible. In fact, if you want to believe the bible, the bible demonstrates all the principles of evolution from observations about plants and crops and animals in the bible. See the book by Joan Roughgarden, the Stanford University biologist. But my best advice is to just leave him alone. None of this is really going to change his mind or make him stop. I did not start this, did I? And I was raised to be rational and tolerant and my parents were and my grandparents were. So you want to change me from being rational and tolerant? Against the faith I was raised in, which I am perfectly happy with? Am I trying to convert you? Proselytize? Nope. You are free to believe whatever you want. As long as it does not negatively affect others. In fact, it will probably just keep him like this for a much longer time. Once they get like this there's no stopping them by human means. I could say the same thing about creationists and fundamentalists, venting hatred and trying to incite others to violence against their fellow man and woman and arguing against reason and rationality. Just let it die, and maybe something will happen to make him change his mind. If not, oh well. I do not expect you to become rational and tolerant. I do want to get one point across though; you are not ... NOT ... welcome to spew hatred and intolerance and attack others and hurt others. And frankly, I think that the typical fundamentalist Christian agenda is counter to the precepts of Christianity. The one group that Jesus spoke negatively of were the Pharisees. And to my mind, the group that is closest in behavior to that ascribed to the Pharisees in the bible are the fundamentalist Christians. It's out of our hands. Besides, as long as we sit and argue, editing's not getting done. Yep. Well that's my long-winded advice on that. Hope everything goes well, and I'm praying for ya'll.---G.T.N. (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC) That is fine. Just try not to attack others and violate the principles of Wikipedia. Just because you believe you are correct, does not mean you are, and does not mean that your own beliefs should be prominent or dominant in any given Wikipedia article, contrary to Wikipedia principles. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability.--Filll (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC) For being one that stresses "tolerance", you seem to be pushing your own worldview. I just noticed this long debate here - usually something you don't see a lot on Wikipedia, and I'm not going to get in a big debate with you about it right now, because you seem pretty close-minded. I'll just pray for God to soften your hard. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I stress tolerance not "intolerance". And I am not pushing my worldview, just defending it and trying to dissuade others from subscribing to intolerance. And I will pray to God to soften your heart, as well as your "hard" and to be more accepting and tolerant and more of a real Christian instead.--Filll (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)] Nothing like correcting a typo that makes one look a bit foolish: [8]--Filll (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) And here is a nice response: [9] A barnstar for arguing with me!--Filll (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC) A "Socratic" barnstar? An Aquinian barnstar I could sort of understand -- defending the faith and all that rot. But Socratic? Not even close. Ugh. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC) "You know that spurious accusations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations is actually a sanctionable offense?" First off, I did not accuse you of attacking me. I simply meant that what you said could' be misconstrued into a personal attack. "Some massive confusion here. Evolution is not chance; it is the farthest thing from chance. Just because some preacher told you it was chance does not mean that it is chance." If evolution is not chance, then what is it? Two things about the amino acids. 1) They were produced by scientists. Meaning they were intelligently designed. 2) Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms, the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet all lab experiments to date produce a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. Only left-handed amino acids are found in nature. Also, you seem to have some issues with preachers and appear to mark every one of my arguments with "Just because some preacher told you it was" or, "Just because a preacher told you some nonsense, does not mean it is correct." I can assure you, my arguments did not come just from preachers. "Interesting how all mainstream scholars seem to disagree with that piece of right wing fundamentalist propaganda." It is also interesting to note that most scholars in the era of copernicus thought that the world was the center of the universe. So, as we can see, just because the mainstream scholars think something is wrong, that doesn't mean it's wrong. "Also, symbiosis has well known explanations associated with evolution [10]." Symbiosis can't account for every variable in the theory of evolution. Now, I will be on a week long wikibreak, as I have a project that needs some of my personal attention, and I can be reached via e-mail or my blog. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Interesting how even though it is claimed you just made all these objections up by yourself, they are carbon copies of the arguments that are in the creationist and fundamentalist playbook, preached by every snake-handling bible thumper who writhes on the floor spewing invective in a fit of glossolalia, or in a Jack Chick religious tract or on a creationist website. Interesting... "You know that spurious accusations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations is actually a sanctionable offense?" First off, I did not accuse you of attacking me. I simply meant that what you said could' be misconstrued into a personal attack. Riiiight. Well you can try to wikilawyer your way out of it, but people have received administrative sanctions for less. "Some massive confusion here. Evolution is not chance; it is the farthest thing from chance. Just because some preacher told you it was chance does not mean that it is chance." If evolution is not chance, then what is it? I guess you did not pay attention in school. And this sort of ignorance for someone supposedly here to write an encyclopedia is shameful. Biological evolution is two things (1) something seen in nature all the time; data, observations, results of experiments (2) the current most commonly accepted explanation for these data. If 25% of the adults in your community have blue eyes, but 13% of the children in your community have blue eyes, that is evolution. Strictly from the definition; a change in allele distrubtion from generation to generation. That is an example of an observation of evolution. And the current most commonly accepted explanation for this is called the "theory of evolution". The biggest two components of this theory are random mutations (sorry, there is randomness in there, but there is randomness in quantum mechanics and fluid mechanics and thermodynamics too; are they all evil theories because they include randomness?) and natural selection, which is decidedly not random. Without some nonrandom part, evolution would never work or explain anything. A nonrandom component is vital. By the way, you are not alone in not knowing what evolution is. In multiple choice tests given to adults in surveys, way less than half of American adults can pick out the definition of evolution from a short list of 4 or 5 choices. Two things about the amino acids. 1) They were produced by scientists. Meaning they were intelligently designed. Actually, they were produced in situations meant to replicate the early earth. The goal was not to make amino acids by any means possible, but to demonstrate how they could arise naturally. And they did. But this is just a standard creationist saw, of the Dr. Dino variety. And we all know where that good moral Christian is right now. Like Ted Haggard. Like Jerry Falwell. Like Jim Bakker. And so on. 2) Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms, the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Actually this is wrong. Glycine for example has no handedness. And there are examples in nature of dextrorotary amino acids, such as in the proteins produced by cone snails or in the walls of bacteria. Yet all lab experiments to date produce a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. Only left-handed amino acids are found in nature. Both D and L forms are found in nature. Both D and L forms are found in living creatures, although the levurotary forms predominate. This is not completely understood, and that is what is true of all science; we do not know everything. And this is where creationists come in; where there is something that science does not know, they leap up to exclaim "God did it!" This works great until we find the scientific explanation that solves that mystery. This is exactly what prominent Christians Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas warned about, when dismissing biblical literalism. If you want to hold to these sorts of claims, eventually you look stupid. That is partly why the Roman Catholic church has shunned biblical literalism as doctrinal fallacy for centuries. I might also note that there are other mysterious asymmetries in nature, such as the seeming predominance of matter over antimatter in the universe. What is the origin of this? The reason for it? No one knows for sure. But if you want, you can declare that there is more matter than antimatter because God said there would be more matter than antimatter. Just do not expect to be allowed to force others to believe you. And just do not use it as an excuse to spew hatred and venom at your fellow man (and woman). Also, you seem to have some issues with preachers and appear to mark every one of my arguments with "Just because some preacher told you it was" or, "Just because a preacher told you some nonsense, does not mean it is correct." I can assure you, my arguments did not come just from preachers. Well maybe all the preachers and creationist websites and creationist books and religious tracts and fundamentalist sermons and so on have stolen all their arguments from you. But unless you are well over 100 years old, I hardly think this is particularly likely. "Interesting how all mainstream scholars seem to disagree with that piece of right wing fundamentalist propaganda." It is also interesting to note that most scholars in the era of copernicus thought that the world was the center of the universe. So, as we can see, just because the mainstream scholars think something is wrong, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Of course. And we expect that our scientific theories to change as we get more data. This is what distinguishes it from religion, which does not change its explanations as we get more data and evidence. All they do is construct more epicycles. "Also, symbiosis has well known explanations associated with evolution [11]." Symbiosis can't account for every variable in the theory of evolution. Of course not. I never said it could. And beyond that, your statement is nonsensical. Every "variable" in the theory of evolution? What the heck does that mean? Now, I will be on a week long wikibreak, as I have a project that needs some of my personal attention, and I can be reached via e-mail or my blog. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks anyway. Please educate yourself before trying to spread this kind of ignorance farther. At least it is not welcome on my page. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) What fun! The thing that strikes me is the peculiar immorality of those who can't understand that morality has meaning regardless of whether or not it's imposed by a magic authority figure. The point was well illustrated in The Root of All Evil?#Sectarian education, where Dawkins interviews the headteacher of an Evangelical school who asserts that without a law-giver, “Why is rape wrong? Why is paedophilia wrong?” and that if people believe they can get away with committing bad deeds then they will tend to do them. Implying that the only reason these things are wrong is because an authority figure will torture you if you do them. Kind of misses the point about morality. By the way, presumably DiligentTerrier isn't meant to refer to "the yapping terriers of ignorance"... dave souza, talk 09:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Now I might be wrong, but I have only ever heard an argument remotely similiar to that which asked what reason there is for it to be wrong if there are no ultimate transcendental standards, if we are just mindless byproducts of evolution and morality changes anyways. If tomorrow the society decided paedophilia was right, would that make it right? according to the definition that seems to be used here, it looks like the answer is yes. However, Christians say that what is wrong is always wrong because it is in the nature of God and how he created the world, that God is the ultimate source of right, and whatever is outside him is wrong. If there is another explanation for a binding morality that goes beyond a mere "social contract," I would love to hear it. ---G.T.N. (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) As I am sure you are well aware (or should be), a few centuries ago it was common for women to be married at the age of 12 or 14 or even younger. Women that were not married at the age of 16 or so were "old maids". In some parts of the world, this is still true. Were these good upstanding bible-believing church-going Christians who married 12 and 13 year old girls doing something immoral? Were they engaging in child abuse? Well in our society they would be and by our current moral standards, they were. In their society and by their moral standards, they were not. In the bible there is lots of mention of slavery. In our modern world and society, that is immoral. In biblical times, perfectly moral. In the bible all kinds of heinous acts are normal and accepted as moral, like slaughtering defeated prisoners or raping them. In today's world, in our society and by our standards, they are not. The amount of wine that is consumed in the bible would be viewed as verging on immoral behavior in today's world and by today's standards. Polygamy was perfectly reasonable and moral in biblical times. It is not viewed that way today in most of the world. Look at the history of Mormonism to how the United States reacted to Mormons. And even recently, how they react to polygamist sects. What about the sin of Onan? God cursed Onan for what he did. So clearly it was viewed as immoral. But by today's standards, what Onan was being encouraged to do would be viewed as immoral. If your brother dies, you are supposed to knock up his widow? Even if you are already married to someone else, or maybe not even married to his widow? Huh? There are literally hundreds of other examples in the bible. And if you go to other cultures today, and all the societies that existed, they had different standards. When I was growing up in Canada, the words "hell", "damn", "devil", "God", "Jesus", "tabernacle", "chalice", "Calvary", "host" (as in communion wafer) were highly frowned upon and viewed as immoral to use in most circumstances (the last 4 of course in French). I do not think that chalice or Calvary were ever regarded as curse words or categorized as "taking the Lord's name in vain" in the United States, although I could be wrong. It would certainly be rare to think so today. I have observed the use of the word "God" as in "Oh my God" become extremely casual and accepted, and it even is common on mainstream media and in day to day conversation. Even preachers and priests and other religious leaders use it in a casual way. It is no longer viewed the same way as it was just a few years ago. And the use of the word "Jesus" has also lost most of its shock value and potency as a curse word and appears far far more often in everyday speech. What happened? Well clearly, standards for what was immoral changed, and are different from place to place. I am sure you never even knew that hosti was one of the most foul curses and shameful ways to break one of the ten commandments, did you? It was and probably still is in some places, but not here in the United States. Interesting huh? And what about using the name "Jesus" before "Jesus" had been born? Was that taking the Lord's name in vain? If this standard existed forever, but no one knew it or could be expected to know it, then it sort of does not make any sense. Look you are free to believe that if you had not been raised in a biblical literalist tradition or whatever that you would be out raping and murdering. That does not explain the societies without the bible or where biblical literalism is frowned upon or absent that have higher moral standards than our society, even among our biblical literalist community (see the great study by Gregory Paul on this; the Western societies with a greater acceptance of evolution are more moral and suffer from fewer social ills. That is, less teenage pregnancy and abortion and suicide etc). You can believe any nonsense you want in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. But when you start trying to force others to join you in your ignorance, then there is a problem. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How would you like it if you were forced to become Hindus or Muslims or believe in Santoria? Not much I bet. --Filll (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Note: editing inside someone else's post like [12] is very bad form, and disruptive and highly offensive. Here is the post: Actually no, only L is found in nature. The problem with the argument here is that science has not been able to prove one way or the other, as a scientific facts are defined as being, lets all use the mantra from high school; "observable, testable (testing the results), and REPEATABLE." As we cannot repeat the origin of the earth, let alone life on earth, their is no concrete way of defining whether one is true or one is false, we can only at best guess. This is really more or less an argument of faith, or a proper term would be believability, of one side over the other. Additionally, in your drive to blame all of your opponents views as merely propaganda of Christianity is a misnomer, as Jerry Falwell does not believe a Creationist view, and in fact ridicules many Creationist groups. Also, the argument here is ID, not Christian Creationism versus Evolution, and pointing all of your arguments of your opponents as such is really trying to distract from the main point of this argument, where and how did life start. Lastly, Your opponent doesn't appear to be forcing his views on you, yet you continue to accuse him of this. Curious.130.108.196.226 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Well you are incorrect. Both L and D are found in nature. L is found predominantly in living things on earth, but D is found as well. And I gave you two examples. Look them up. However, I do not insist that you disabuse yourself of your ignorance. I only insist that you do not try to force it on others. Is that so hard to understand? That is, no witnessing. No teaching. No ranting and raving like a deranged lunatic. Thanks, but no thanks. Ok? And you are trying to make ridiculous God of the Gaps arguments. Science produces temporary explanations (called theories) for observations, experimental results and other data. That is it. Is that so hard to understand? Now if you want to take the areas where science does not yet have a good answer, and shove God in there, be my guest. That is just not science. And it should not be declared to be science. And as I said over and over, your personal beliefs should not be forced on others. Capisci? Also your understanding of science is appalling. You leave out all the observational sciences, like seismology and astronomy and meteorology. They are sciences, whether they are "repeatable" or not. As you might surmise, science is a bit more complicated than what you learned in high school in maybe 1 or 2 years of 3 or 4 hours a week of class. Of course not all "Christians" and others of faith believe in creationism. In fact, it is a teeny tiny minority. For starters, the official position of the Roman Catholic church is that creationism is nonsense. If you count up the total number of Christians worldwide (2.5 billion), and the number of creationists, you will see that creationists constitute a tiny minority, mainly prevalent in the US, where the most hardcore of creationists are really only maybe 10 percent of the population. Even half of all Baptists and Pentecostals renounce biblical literalism in anonymous surveys. More than 80 percent of all those claimed to be Christian in the US belong to faiths that have no problem with evolution. Take a look at the Clergy Letter Project. It is obvious and well documented that intelligent design is just a stalking horse for Christian Creationism. Look at speeches by Phillip E. Johnson to his base. Look at the Wedge Document. Look at pronouncements by the main scientists in intelligent design movement, especially William Dembski. Even the Islamic Creationists like Harun Yahya have made statements to this effect. Even the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed promoted intelligent design as creationism. We have 10 or more peer reviewed papers that state that intelligent design is just a type of creationism; some of them even published by fellow creationists. As for "forcing his views", let's look at the facts: This is my talk page. I did not start this. I did not continue this, but just answered the charges and accusations against me. He and his comrades have appeared here on Wikipedia articles, bent on ignoring the principles that Wikipedia operates under to push their agenda He uses the same arguments as extremist sects that focus on forcing others to believe as they do. Some even want to kill those who believe something else (what about the death threats against the Dover trial judge, John E. Jones III?). All by good "moral" Christian people with upstanding values... NOT. You and he and everyone else that wants to proclaim your narrow views are invited to not post more of this nonsense here. I gave you enough time; more than enough time. And all I saw was a blizzard of the same tired old arguments, long since refuted. And nasty venom. You are free to believe whatever you want. Do you get that? You are free to believe it, no matter what it is. With one proviso: Do not force it on others or hurt others. Is that so hard to abide by? That is one of the foundational principles of the United States. If you disagree, you might want to study up a bit on what you missed in high school.--Filll (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What is going on?

Hello, I noticed that you have participated at Intelligent design. What is going on? I just watched an excellent documentary tonight, just got back, and I wanted to insert some information that was presented in this film. But low and behold, the article is locked down. It's like the Berlin Wall. The documentary must be true. Please unlock this article and allow academic freedom. Yhvh777 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, your response seems wholly unrelated to my question. Yhvh777 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it up why dont you.--Filll (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm having this strange deja vu feeling that this just might be a sock. I just can't place who would be operating it. Baegis (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Calvin ...

...the 'persecuted ID scientist' -- just to make sure you "have some of fun here". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Lectures

It's like... now (15:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)) and we're sorta on Skype. I think you're on? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations for your patience

I am really impressed by the patience you have shown in the discussion above. I find it hard to fight the mental image of a sockpuppeteer who sits chuckling in a corner somewhere while you look up the life dates of Hammurabi and Moses. In Germany we have religious education at all schools, and our teacher once started class by writing the original of the Code of Hammurabi on the blackboard, in Latin transliteration of the original cuneiform writing, and later also in translation. We even had to learn part of it by heart. This is how he started an extended unit on the 10 commandments.

In case you get into this kind of situation again: I think the bit about animals having language is wrong. It's often reported that way, but that seems to be mostly made up by journalists. Since you don't know this I guess that you don't know Language Log, which I hereby recommend as a general source of wisdom and entertainment. As far as wine is concerned, I think the "wine" in ancient times was almost always mixed with large amounts of water, and in the mediterranean countries wine is still consumed in large quantities (nowadays pure), so this seems to be an example of geographical rather than temporal relativity of morals.

What I also found particularly interesting is the stories that used to be told about Pythagoras. Some of them are quite similar to those about Jesus, especially this one, which reminds me of Jesus feeding the ten thousand hungry. However the version that has survived is from Iamblichus, a little late to be used in an argument with true believers. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a reason for using wine (or beer for that matter) in ancient times; water sources were typically quite impure. And of course sometimes it was watered. It was expensive.

On animals and language: This is mildly controversial. However, there is a lot of recent compelling evidence. Primates that type on computers. Dogs that recognize hundreds of sounds made by other dogs and communicate information this way. Dogs that know hundreds of human words. Parrots that learn human language and do not just mimic it. Elephants that show signs of language understanding. National Geographic for March or April 2008 includes some interesting material. Of course, skeptics are going to reject it; the use of tools by animals was rejected for decades too.

Stories of other prophets and mystics with characteristics similar to Jesus are actually quite common. The God who Wasn't There is a "documentary" of sorts that includes some of this. It is hard to know what it means, but it is interesting.--Filll (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Something you said

"What is interesting, is that contrary to the wikilove chorus worries about us driving away newbies and FRINGErs etc by not being more open and accepting and "letting the FRINGE advocates feel dignity" ( paraphrasing something a wikilove person told me)"

I'm curious - do you believe this to be the position that I've taken? It bears a certain resemblance, but it's fundamentally different from anything I would say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that you believe it, at least in part. Others believe similar things, some less extreme and some more extreme. If you feel your position bears no resemblance to this, I apologize and admit that I have misunderstood your position. Please state your position succinctly in that case.--Filll (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really concerned about being "open and accepting" or about "scaring off newbies". That's not behind my belief that we must maintain a professional decorum at all times. I mean, it's a nice side-effect, that we scare off fewer new users when we're refraining from name-calling, labeling, etc. That's not, however, what it's for. If we could build a better, more neutral encyclopedia by scaring off more newbies, I'd be for it.

All I care about is building a good, neutral encyclopedia. The only reason I advocate for civility on Wikipedia (not for WP:CIVIL, which I oppose) is that we can maintain the encyclopedia better, resist POV-pushers better, retain more experts, and more closely attain neutrality by being civil.

The reason to be civil to "POV-pushers" is to more soundly beat them. That's what I've been advocating all this time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is great in theory. I am all for anything that will make us more productive and efficient. I just have seen no evidence of this approach working yet, or working better than current practice, let alone even fully understanding what this approach is, or how it differs from what we do commonly.

I asked you to take the User:Filll/AGF Challenge to demonstrate in a few simple cases what your "dignity" approach would entail. Have you done it yet? At this point, almost 70 people have taken the AGF Challenge. I have another 25 or more exercises already prepared. Then at least we could compare your approach with what was done in those cases and what others feel might be Best Practices in these kinds of situations. And maybe we could even begin to study the different approaches scientifically.

You see, if you have someone who tries very very hard to keep an article from satisfying NPOV for days or weeks or months on end, by wikilawyering and waffling and purposely misreading the policies and arguing against consensus, for hours and hours a day, it is quite a different experience than just making some abstract theoretical declaration. If they do not violate CIVIL and NPA, then they are pretty immune from a lot of our standard toolkit. I do not think someone who just makes these declarations in the abstract quite understands what it is like to explain to the same person 100, 200, 300 or more times what NPOV is, and why NPOV means that all relevant views are included, not just the positive and sympathetic views. And to have one or two people and possibly a few sock puppets holding out against 5, 10, 20 or more experienced users with obfuscation and tendentious argumentation. It wastes a HUMUNGOUS amount of time and energy of everyone concerned. And so, in the face of that, what do you suggest?

I do not advocate cursing them out. I do not advocate calling them names (although as I pointed out previously, by the simple process of pejoration associated with the dysphemism treadmill, any names for behaviors or processes or mechanisms or categories will acquire connotations inevitably). I do not advocate summarily sanctioning them. I do not advocate attacking them. But something has to be done. And I do not think that coddling them or helping them keep their "dignity" intact necessarily works so great either.

There was one case I pointed you to that you looked at in detail. In that situation, you gave tacit approval to our approach. However, in that case, we roughed an editor up pretty badly. About eleven of us pounded him over and over on 4 or 5 pages. If you recall, he claimed negative book reviews of a book were a BLP violation besmirching the author. However, I fail to see how this approach helped him retain his "dignity". And this approach wasted a huge amount of time and was stressful for all concerned. Yet you approved of it. Thankfully it lasted only a couple of days, but it could have easily dragged on for a week or two or more.

So I have yet to see what this "dignity" approach entails and how it is different than what is done currently.

I would prefer to have a limit where if someone states an interpretation of NPOV that is different than standard interpretation and the consensus of 5 or 10 or 20 other editors, and repeats this tactic more than 5 times or so, that there be a way to discount their input and discourage continued participation on this issue. Or to send them for training or education on this concept. Or something. But taking the time and energy of legions of regular editors to argue the same point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over really is kind of inefficent. We just try to hope they give up before we do. How useful is that?

Of course, if a given person is not the one doing the arguing, then they don't really care, do they? But I am one of the people who does the arguing. And believe me, it is no fun and it is a waste for everyone concerned. I refuse to believe that we cannot do better somehow.

Maybe your technique of "dignity" first will work. I have to see it however and be convinced that it is any different than what is done currently. I have my doubts.--Filll (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've almost completed my replies to the AGF challenge. I'll post you a link when I'm finished, although it's easy enough for you to check on my progress by looking at my recent contribution history.

I think I'm beginning to understand where we're differing. I don't suggest an approach to DR that's any different from the standard approach. What I'm suggesting is applying the standard approach with maximum effectiveness. When we fail to behave professionally (and that is what you may call my approach: the "professional approach"), we undermine the standard approach. Every ad hominem remark weakens our best tools, because it muddies the waters and makes our arguments less clean, and less clearly accepted/acceptable. We want clean arguments, not dirty ones. All I've been suggesting is to leave the dirt out. Getting dirty is not professional, and we must be professional.

"I do not think someone who just makes these declarations in the abstract quite understands what it is like to explain to the same person 100, 200, 300 or more times what NPOV is, and why NPOV means that all relevant views are included, not just the positive and sympathetic views." I'm sorry that you remain unaware of my field experience in dispute resolution. My record is open for review; I suggest you look at my pagemoves (see here), or go back into the archives to when I was active at Abortion, or look into the history of the userbox wars, if you want to see my "approach" in action, being proven repeatedly in the field. If you want me to just swoop in and "fix" some heavily controversial article, I'll remind you that I've said before: I don't claim to be able to do that. Fixing an article requires knowing about the subject, and working the DR strategy over time.

Another place to look, if you want to know what I advocate, is right here, right now. Notice what I'm doing and what I'm not doing. Notice that, even though I am (and consistently have been) arguing for professionalism and you're arguing against me, I refrain from characterizing your position as "against professionalism". Would it be fair for me to do that? I don't think so, and I don't think it would be helpful, or even true. Would we understand each other more or less easily, if I said that your position is "against professionalism"? I know that you're not against professionalism, that you simply think that I'm advocating something other than what I really am. I don't blame you for that error; I think I must not be as good of a communicator as I'd like. I'm working on that, right here, right now. Is this bad dispute resolution, what we're doing here? Would it be better if I decide I've explained it to you five times, and therefore you must be a troll? I could jump to that conclusion, but that would be pretty hypocritical, considering what I've been saying. However, I know you're not a troll, and if you really are, I'll never know it.

"And to have one or two people and possibly a few sock puppets holding out against 5, 10, 20 or more experienced users with obfuscation and tendentious argumentation. It wastes a HUMUNGOUS amount of time and energy of everyone concerned. And so, in the face of that, what do you suggest?" I suggest working the dispute resolution process without undermining it by displaying less than professional behavior. The only way the DR process works in your favor is if you are unfailingly professional, courteous, and focused on the relevant content policies. You have to be clean as a whistle. Otherwise, you create friction, the wheels grind to a halt, and it wastes a HUMUNGOUS amount of time and energy.

I want you to win, Filll, and I want you to do it by stepping up your game, in terms of professionalism. Not in terms of wikilove, or dignity, or AGF, or anything else. You may hate them, mistrust them, and scorn them, but if you're behaving professionally, you'll never let that show - not a glimmer. Then your powers will multiply a thousandfold. Professionalism is the only thing I have ever talked to you about, Filll, and it's not a bad idea, no matter how you cut it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have mischaracterized the situation.--Filll (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? How? It certainly wasn't intentional. My goal here is clarity; can you help me find it?

By the way here are my replies to your AGF Challenge. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not recommend ad hominem remarks or attacks. I do disagree with overweighting enforcement of that policy over other policies. I do disagree with giving newbies and FRINGE proponents a pass on that policy and enforcing it aggressively on experienced users.

I do think the standard approach is not optimal. I think other approaches should be tried. And I think whether we call people trolls or not (which I avoid) or call what they do POV pushing or not (which I no longer do), the effect is not much different. Maybe it is, but I have not seen it.

I am not really arguing against professionalism or against you. I just have yet to be convinced that the "professional" or the "dignity preserving" approach works or is as you characterized it. For one thing, when I see your answers to the AGF Challenge, frankly they are far harsher and more brutal than we apply in practice, because we are bending over backwards. But I have noticed this; those who think we are too rough actually would be far rougher themselves. Interesting, isnt it? I also do not think that what I have seen in practice preserves much dignity or is particularly professional, even though no names are called and people are perfectly civil most of the time. And I am not convinced your approach is better; blocking mercilessly and rapidly, even if done professionally, has a way to get people's ire up and be viewed pretty negatively.--Filll (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE that you are not arguing against professionalism. I know that you do not recommend ad hominem remarks or attacks, but I think you are not sufficiently aware of the damage that they do, and not sufficiently convinced that they must be avoided, as a efficacious measure. I get the impression that you think there is a tension between asking editors to be civil on the one hand, and maintaining a neutral encyclopedia on the other hand. I think that tension needn't exist.

I hope you will examine my blocking log, and tell me whether you think I have been harsher or less harsh than you would be with the block button. I've never found that my "political capital" has been strained over a block I've made here. Perhaps you'd say I've stayed away from controversy, to which my reply would be that, when DR is working well, nobody has to get blocked.

I'm curious, the only swift blocks I described in my challenge answers are over the NLT policy. Have you seen people making legal threats on Wikipedia and getting away with it, or using it as effective leverage? I find that shocking if true, because I have seen admin after admin come down like a hammer on legal threats, with unanimous support at AN/I. That policy is non-negotiable; is it not being enforced? Where? I'm ready to block over a legal threat, after precisely one (1) warning. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think you would not easily have the political capital to apply your approach with swift blocking of those who violate the core principles of Wikipedia. Because by my observation, the core principles of Wikipedia are not viewed as having any value in the current culture here.--Filll (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to put that idea to the test by getting me if I'm online and a situation arises. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, and to risk my reputation here for what I believe will help the encyclopedia. Please hold me to my word - I want to show you what I mean in practice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I showed you one. But it was over by the time you looked. And I showed you another example. Which you did not act on, and so it has headed into arbcomm now and for which far more global solutions are being considered, similar to what have I been advocating for months now.

Ah, you're referring to Dana Ullman? I was sorry to be as swamped with off-wiki work as I was when you directed me to his case. I am following the ArbCom case with interest, and I have not dropped the idea of helping split off an article devoted to talking about research into the efficacy of homeopathy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also interested in any other feedback you have about my answers to the exercise. Do you agree in general with the suggestions I've made? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are no right answers and wrong answers to Challenge exercises. The point is to see what people really think without having to spend months in a brutal battle on some article with megabytes of postings involved. I suspect if you did more of the exercises, the results might be about the same. Your answers were all sensible, although as I said, a little harsher and less forgiving than what was done in the actual situations.--Filll (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Were people alllowed to bandy about legal threats on-wiki without being blocked for it? I'm very interested in that particular point, because it is at such variance with my own experience with WP:NLT. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It happens all the time. They are cautioned about it of course. But nothing comes of it usually.--Filll (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen someone toss legal threats around without having a book thrown at them. I do hope you'll let me know, should you ever see it happen again. I'm rather keen to see that policy strictly enforced. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

you might get a kick out of this

Behe on Dembski's dud:

When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin's theory, The Design of Life will be at the top

Now Demsbki (quoted here on Stein's fiasco:

When future intellectual historians describe the key events that led to the fall of 'Darwin's Wall,' Ben Stein's Expelled will top the list.

Is that a laff riot or what? Angry Christian (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Invite

You have been invited to a debate on ID vs. Evolution at my blog. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NTWW topics page

I've created a topics page. I'm not sure if this is anything like what you had in mind, so please let me know what you think and feel free to edit that page any way you see fit. Dorftrottel (warn) 05:35, April 23, 2008

interesting range to AGF question one multiplechoice answer one

Hi. I was reading the responses to the AGF challenge. Question one "Wife-Report that the subject coauthored books with his wife" has an answer", the first multiple choice answer is "Report that the subject coauthored books with his wife". It's fascinating that there is range of opinion even within this narrow band. Some editors would block, some would invite discussion on the talk page. May I ask, are you going to collate the responses and create pie charts etc at any point? It was an interesting exercise and I learnt a lot from it. Kind regards. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here were my early plans for the AGF Challenge. I have about 25 new AGF Challenge exercises that I will release at some point, possibly in groups of 8 or 10 exercises so as not to overwhelm anyone. I also plan on summarizing what I find, as well as describing what happened in each situation. It is interesting to see what people think, however. Particularly the critics of how Wikipedia handles controversial articles, who almost uniformly claim that Wikipedia editors experienced in editing controversial topics are too harsh. I notice that their responses to the AGF Challenge exercises are often much more harsh and unforgiving than what is commonplace on Wikipedia, even though they are demanding that Wikipedia be more forgiving in the abstract, without much knowledge or experience of what sorts of things go on around controversial articles and topics.--Filll (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote

"A gay peninsula filled with sprightly people who ate peppered food, drank strong liquors, wore flamboyant clothes, loved and murdered easily and had a splendid talent for starting wars".- A Long Row of Candles by C. J. Sulzberger--Filll (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Slovenia is not a part of that penninsula, as its WP article would tell you (Slovenia), it's a cool quote. --WorldWide Update (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the general area is referred to as the Balkans, not just the peninsula itself. And there are many other similar quotes around. A famous one is by Winston Churchill, and I was looking for it when I found this one and gave up since it suited my purposes.--Filll (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you define "the whole general area"? Is Austria a part of the Balkans because its border is just a few miles from my home in Slovenia? Slovenia is considered to be one of the Alpine states or historic Mitteleuropa. After all, it was a part of the Austrian Hapsburg Empire, not the Turkish Ottoman Empire, and was therefore culturally distinct from the Balkans. Again, I refer you to the WP article about Slovenia for further information about the country, which should prove useful. --WorldWide Update (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not researched this, but I am sure there have been varying definitions as to what is part of the Balkans and what is not over the years.--Filll (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there have been, as the WP article on the Balkans indicates. However, even those definitions -- a small minority -- that include Slovenia in the Balkans do so on the basis of physical geography and the fact that Yugoslavia, which Slovenia was a part of until 1991, was a Balkan country. However, Slovenia is not a part of the Balkan area in a cultural sense (it was dominated by the Austrians, not the Turks, so our traditions from clothing to cuisine -- never spicy -- are different to those of the Balkans), which means that your quote does not really apply to Slovenia, but rather to the lands south of it. However, I'm sure you can find some equally good quote criticizing Slovenia and its people. --WorldWide Update (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, if I piqued your curiosity about Slovenia (I doubt it), here's a YouTube video: [13] --WorldWide Update (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been in many long long debates and discussions and arguments with Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Bosnians and Kosovans (?) etc. And all I know is, they are all pretty angry about one thing and another and fiercely patriotic or even jingoistic and will not listen to reason or calm down and just seem to want to fight all the time. So if Slovenia is not like this, or you want ot claim that, that is fine. I don't really care to be honest. I have done my time arguing over such silly issues.--Filll (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was merely disputing the relevance of that particular quote to a Slovenia-related context, not your past experiences with other users (none of whom were actually Slovene, it seems) or even your opinion of me and my debating style. --WorldWide Update (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What you can do for me is to take the User:Filll/AGF Challenge--Filll (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Invite (again)

You have been invited to a debate on ID vs. Evolution at my blog. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)