User talk:Parableman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Concerned Alumni of Princeton[edit]

Do you have a source for the argument about the quotas preventing a lowering of standards? Otherwise, I'm fairly sure you've misinterpreted it. Tlogmer 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to this. I hope this is the right method. If I understand what you're questioning, this is not a factual matter to cite a source. It's a philosophical issue. A quota as standardly interpreted is a rigid holding of spots no matter the qualifications. In affirmative action contexts, this counts as lowering standards if the underrepresented group in question has a lower performance on standard ways of measuring qualifications, as is the case with minority groups in the U.S. in college admissions. The main philosophical argument among conservatives against affirmative action is that it lowers standards in a way that's harmful to the group in question who are supposed to be helped by affirmative action. In the CAP proposal to keep the same number of male applicants admitted while adding women, there would thus be no lowering of standards, provided that the same number of male applicants continues to apply and maintains a similar level of qualification. That means the standard conservative argument against affirmative action does not apply to this particular proposal. (It might apply to the legacy issue, but it doesn't apply to this particular view.) The way the entry was worded before I edited it, there was an insinuation that this view of CAP was at odds with the standard conservative view on affirmative action, and I wanted to make it clear that these aren't exactly the same issue. Parableman 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 16[edit]

Please note that there is no point in editing Talk page archives. If you have a comment, and would like it to be read, please address a user directly, or comment on the Talk page itself. Thank you. [1] -- Ec5618 02:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, please don't edit archives. There is no point, and it disrupts the archives. -- Ec5618 09:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then please tell me what I'm supposed to do. The only thing I can see is a discussion page that seems to be for discussion, because that's its name. I added to the discussion. If there's some other page for discussion besides the discussion page, then tell me where it is rather than telling me not to use the discussion page for discussion. Duh.-- Parableman 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You may use "Talk:Intelligent design" for discussion. "Talk:Intelligent design/Archive 16" is the sixteenth archive of discussion on that page. You were editing an archive, not a live discussion.
Also, when you want to contact another user, you may leave a message on their Talk page (as I am doing now). Emailing is generally used as a last resort. Not all users have their email address registered. -- Ec5618 17:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Differences with Van Til[edit]

I would appreciate your comment about what I wrote at the bottom of this section on the Francis Schaeffer Discussion Page where I have addressed you and Flex personally. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 21:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?[edit]

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Good catch on the chronology of Voldemort's Horcruxes. I updated the article to reflect it. BRIT 22:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)