User talk:The Rev of Bru

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

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you have a great interest in presenting atheist and non-Christian viewpoints in the encyclopedia. This is very worthwhile and welcome. However, most of these "controversial" articles have been balanced by a wide range of editors, so that it is considered better form to take proposed changes, especially major changes, like you have done at Jesus, New Testament, Alleged textual evidence for Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, etc. to the Talk pages (use "Discuss this page") at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, your additions are liable to be simply ignored as vandalism rather than working together to improve the article. It is better not to put "editor questions" in the main text (unless in an HTML comment), so that casual readers are not confused. The talk pages are for discussion.

By the way, you can sign your entries on the "Talk" pages by adding three tildes ~~~ or sign and date them with four ~~~~. Mpolo 17:00, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) Thanks for the welcome, no thanks for the condescension. I have no great interest in presenting atheist or non-christian viewpoints: what I do have an interest in is preventing Christian bias from articles.

I wasn't intending to be condescending. I'm sorry if it seemed that way. Things just go better on the controversial pages if we discuss first. Otherwise it just goes back and forth in an edit war, which wastes everyone's time. Mpolo 19:24, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Please review NPOV, and Wikipedia:Civility. Pleas consider if you can agree w our M:Foundation issues. I have reviewed all of your edits, and am concerned. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 21:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello. What you could do to help is take a long hard look at your own beliefs and interpretation of the NPOV and M:Foundation issues. You yourself have a serious POV, which is all the more serious for your refusal to accept that. Just because you dislike certain facts doesn't mean that they are POV. The Rev of Bru
I am not quite as pessimistic about your edits as Sam (who in the case of God made one or two edits at least as questionable), but it is true that your edits are very belligerent; you seem to cry "POV vandalism" very easily, and you seem to be dealing with controversial christian topics exclusively, pushing skepticist wordings. How about taking a break with an uncontroversial topic, from time to time? WP has many of these in dire need of attention! regards, dab 11:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I have not only worked on christian topics; I started writing and editing on some other topics I have some knowledge of before I noticed the horrendous POV issues in some of the articles on Christianity, which were presenting only one POV (or in some cases a multitude of Theist POVs, but no freethinking or irreligious POVs) on the same matters. I am going to work more on less contraversial articles for a while, but I am committed to seeing all the sides of the debate represented. IMO people give religion, and the religious, far too much respect for no good reason; we can debate politics properly but somehow religion is different....The Rev of Bru
that's a valid objective. but of course, if topic X is of crucial importance to group Y, WP will say "topic X is of crucial importance to group Y". articles dealing with religion will necessarily contain mostly POVs of people who care about religion, because, well, the others don't care enough to even have a specific POV... In major articles it may of course be alright to say "some people care bugger all about all this" somewhere. dab 15:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course, I agree. I only edit when the POV of a specific group is presented as the truth, articles which are according to the NPOV policy and simply state what various groups believe are perfectly fine by me; I'm not out to censor anyone (unlike Sam Spade, apparently.)The Rev of Bru

Recent edits[edit]

User:The Rev of Bru, you must respect wikipedia policy if you are to remain here. One good starting point would be to discuss major changes in talk, and obey the concensus you find there. Sam [Spade] 15:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does this rule not apply to you? I have been discussing any major issues in talk. Although repairing the damage done by people like yourself with a serious POV and a refusal to show other sides of any debate is taking up some of my time.The Rev of Bru

logical accuracy[edit]

I would like to show you how one of your edits were not logically accurate: "Weak atheism differs from strong atheism, in which the atheist makes the positive assertion that there are no gods (or that specific gods do not exist)"

You added the bracketed text, does this mean that Christians are weak atheists too because they deny that Shiva exists? I don't think so, I am removing the bracketed text because it is confusing. If you want to re-word it, go for it. The article is Weak Atheism. --metta, The Sunborn 04:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

....Have a look at the definition... everyone is (weakly or strongly) atheistic towards gods they don't believe in. I was accurate. Hence one of the most famous atheistic quotes : "I contend that we are both atheists; I simply believe in one less god than you." This is fairly well known, so the article was correct. However, thank you for contacting me about it. If you disagree, I'd first ask that you have a look online to see who the larger atheist sites agree with, then we can debate the issue.The Rev of Bru
Alright, if that is what we are taking it as. I will have to use that on the next theist I see, it will be funny. Cheers, --metta, The Sunborn 15:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revert[edit]

Please review this policy. You reverted not just edits by me which included spelling corrections, grammer corrections, and wiklilinks, but also edits made by others. Please review:

Also, leave notes at the bottom of talk pages, this way they are more likely to be read. Sam [Spade] 16:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Wrong. I have read and understood the policies of Wikipedia. And if you are referring to the recent revert of the God article, the other contributor's 'edit' consisted of deleting the entire text and replacing it with something about masturbation. Now, you may think that valid, given your propensity for deleting things you dont like, but I don't, so I reverted it to the more accurate, more NPOV version. Thank you for your civility on this occasion, much improved over your usual condescending and arrogant tone. The Rev of Bru

God[edit]

Your last edit was acceptable. Please come and discuss anything further at Talk:God. You would also be well served to at least review recent discussion @ Talk:Atheism. I think you will discover there is little concensus there. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 22:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consensus by those who aren't seriously POV with a grudge against atheists, I do find. Just because Sam Spade (quoted from his own words) "reviles atheists" doesnt mean he is qualified nor well informed on what the definition of atheism is. He seems to be the only one disagreeing with the majority view; he is just extremely outspoken on the subject.The Rev of Bru
Ah, thanks for the breathing room. I take it from your comments you havn't read talk:Atheism? I suggest you try it. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 01:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus[edit]

Rev, I've commented here -- is that the page you were calling my attention to? As I noted there, I'm not at all sure that you and I disagree on the point being discussed, but of course you'll have to respond for me to be certain. My reverts to the Jesus article (I made two, as I recall) removed a few words from the article, and I have, I think, pretty openly and reasonably defended them on the talk page -- I disagree that "scholars" is a term that is not inclusive of the group "historians", and I disagree that it is fair to characterize scholars who believe in Jesus' historical existence as "Christian" (though I certainly agree that some non-Christian scholars do doubt it, I don't think any evidence has been presented that scholars who believe in Jesus' historical existence are essentially all Christian). I do agree, however, that Wikipedia needs to be clear in explaining and attributing the arguments of those scholars who doubt the historical existence of Jesus. I hope you won't characterize what I did as vandalism again -- it wasn't intended to damage the article (which I think "vandalism" implies), and I think I have always been very open to discussing possible changes on the talk page and reaching consensus. I accepted many of the edits made by both you and CheeseDreams, as I recall, and I even complimented CheeseDreams for a recent edit on the article. I hope that establishes, to some extent, that I am willing to be very reasonable and openminded about how the article may be changed. I am, however, a firm believer in discussing changes and reaching consensus, and I hope you feel the same way. Let me know if there were other discussions you were seeking my response for. Thanks very much, Jwrosenzweig 23:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was actually seeking the debate in the talk-Jesus section on historicity, but whatever. The point I wished to make was not that "scholars" is not inclusive of the group "historians"; but rather that some of the scholars are historians, some are, for example, biblical scholars and some are different varieties of scholar with an interest and qualifications relating to the subject. I did not mean that all scholars who believe in a historical Jesus are christian: muslims also believe he was a prophet, etc - but the point has been made at great length in other pages that most biblical scholars are in fact Christians. Now, that is not a problem - except for one thing - do you - or does anyone - think it remotely likely that any Christian will ever conclude that there was not a historical Christ- whatever the evidence against it might be? Its an assumption that is built in to their entire frame of reference. That doesnt necessarily mean that they are wrong, of course - but it means that they are not likely to be objective on the matter. The other point on scholars who do believe in a historic Jesus is : are they actually investigating the existence, or are they simply scholars on some other part of the bible who simply assume Jesus existed? I listed some very respected secular scholars who do not think there is any evidence for a historic christ. I also asked for some of the supposed evidence, which has had absolutely no response- what is the evidence? The article makes it clear that even the gospels are not eyewitness acounts- not written at the time of the events. Couple this with the fact that everything Jesus supposedly said is attributed to other famous wise men of various areas (Egypt primarily) from before the time he supposedly existed... and that the earlier the gospel date, the more ethereal and vague the descriptions of Jesus are...
Anyway. I hope that this will mean more discussion before editing, and that we can reach an accord. All I want to see is equal representation of descriptions of every POV, with the bulk of the article being as NPOV as possible. I apologise if I was not clear as to where I was trying to have the discussion. The Rev of Bru 01:40, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another NPOV dispute[edit]

Could you take a look at the edit history and talk page of Cultural and historical background of Jesus?

Hello, whoever you are. Doesnt seem as bad as other texts. I'm not sure that 'people' should not be 'scholars' or 'skeptical historians and scholars' as in the other article. Some more of the text could be clarified into being 'what specific groups believe'.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks[edit]

Please refrain from making personal attacks, such as "bigoted" "full of hate", etc... They don't help your case, and create an unpleasent working environment here. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 13:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stating that someone who claims to hate others irrationally is bigoted is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. You claim to hate atheists, for no reason = you are a bigot. Please review civility, bigotry and hate crimes. The Rev of Bru
look here Bru, Sam may or may not be a bigot. But why do you make it your mission to expose him as one? There may be any number of bigots lurking on WP, so what do you think you will gain from all this? Just leave him alone and concentrate on his edits: At the beginning of this were, I believe, Sam's statements about "all cultures have gods". I disagree with this just as much as you do. But observe how I just tried to argue this particular point rather than making into a campaign against Sam. He didn't immediately accept the objections, it is true, and the "all cultures" thing went back and forth a couple of times, finally changing into "concept of gods" rather than "belief in gods", and it became clear what the actual issue was. We could then insert a longer explanation of the facts that were before only briefly alluded to by the "all cultures" bit, explaining how different cultures have different levels of, and different approaches to, "theism", and from what was initially just a stubborn revert, the article actually profited! I am asking you to just calmly and succintly point out the bias you detect in Sam's edits on Talk pages. You are completely free to decide that he is a bigot or what not, but that is just not relevant. Even a bigot may make useful contributions. POV issues can be fixed without shouting at people. dab 18:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look here Dab, according to the definition of 'Bigot' - sam is a bigot. Its not my mission to expose him as one, I'm simply defending myself against all the slander he heaps on me. I am calmly and carefully pointing out the bias in his edits, and am not shouting at anyone. I hope you have noticed his attitude towards me is far worse than mine towards him. I also resent the implication that I am conducting some form of campaign against him. I am simply defending myself when I see his slander against me. I visit a users talk page to discuss some aspect of an article that seems contentious, and find all manner of imprecations against me from Sam. I then reply in a civil manner. The Rev of Bru

that's precisely the way to go, and you will be fine if you firmly keep to this resolution. regards, dab 15:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why gods and godesses?[edit]

On the God page, why do wish to see "Atheists do not believe in the existence of God, gods or godesses?

I agree it's true and accurate, but it seems redundant (the article on Atheism should say this) and not relevant (the God article only covers "God" and not gods or godesses). Mozzerati 22:49, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) Because it is more accurate, and because the concept of a monotheistic god is not the only nor main thing that atheists disbelieve in. Many people have a misconception that atheists go out of their way to disbelieve in only their god: that would be displaying their POV. Its more NPOV this way. The Rev of Bru

What about "Atheists do not believe in any divine being." (Or the like, so as to avoid the slightly awkward "God, gods or goddesses".)? Mpolo 11:55, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps supernatural divine being. I'm not sure that is is awkward, rather than uncomfortable for theists to see their own gods lumped in with other gods they don't believe in. Also, it would have to be the plural; "divine beings". I'd rather it was accurate and awkward than inaccurate and simplified. But that is just me. The Rev of Bru

As a theist, I have no problem with all divine beings lumped together in a description of what atheists believe. "Atheists do not believe in any supernatural divine beings" is fine by me, and to me it sounds better than God, gods or goddesses. Mpolo 13:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Fine by me. But be prepared for possible problems from some fringes of Buddhism, Taoism etc. The Rev of Bru
please bring it up as concerning the intro on Talk:God. In my view, the article is dealing with both God and god, and especially with establishing the difference between the two. Odin for example is a god and not God, but a believer in Odin is certanily not an atheist. "divine beings" is certainly the correct term to summarize "God, gods/goddesses". We would then either link divine to deity or say what we mean by "divine being" (namely, God or gods), so nothin is gained, really. dab 15:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sources about Jesus[edit]

Your reversion of "Sources about Jesus" was counter-productive. I've put details in the talk on that page. Please don't make blanket reversions to large amounts of text by multiple users. Thanks. Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 19:29, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) Sorry, no. The article was basically vandalised by Sam Spade: a user with a known bias against non-christian points of view and with a serious agenda. I was repairing that. If another user had edited while I was loading ad reverting the page, I'm sorry about that, but it is far better off without his POV, biased 'edit'.

Slrubenstein[edit]

In light of comments he has made on the Historicity of Jesus page about his going to delete a section, and in light of comments on the same section by another user in my talk page, would you be prepared to support a referral for arbitration about him abusing Wikipedia and asking for him to be prohibited? CheeseDreams 23:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although I do sometimes disagree with the POV of his edits, afaik this is the first time he has actually gone against policy. I'd have to wait and see if it happens again. (unless there are other instances I don't know about.) Need more info in this situation. The Rev of Bru

I haven't gone against any policy. If you want to submit this for mediation or arbitration, or move to have me banned, go ahead and let's see what happens. Slrubenstein

The very fact that he "wrote" he was going to delete a section indicates that he was discussing the issue on the Talk page before doing anything. Besides which, to go to arbitration, you need two independant attempts to work this out with him on his Talk page and a failed RFC. I don't see any point in escalating this. Everyone is discussing the issues just fine at the moment. If you're really worried about it, save up the URL for your "evidence" for the future. Mpolo 16:29, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
He didn't "suggest" deletion, he "threatened" it. Which is not the same thing alltogether. CheeseDreams 17:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mpolo. The passage I threaten to delete is one that literally makes no sense (the writing is obscure) and that seems to be based on no research, and does not reflect scholarly views. I explained this on the talk page and provided time for discussion. No one (as of last night) was able to explain the non-sequitors, provide evidence, or scholarly citations. I think it is completely within the Wikipedia policies for an editor to point out a problem in an article, suggest deletion, provide reasons, and allow for debate on the discussion page before making any changes. That is all I did and I don't see how anyone could criticize me for it. CheeseDream's acts would have the effect only of censoring my views. If CheeseDreams is asking for mediation, and Pedant is offering, I have no problem with that. However, I must clarify my own (or original) position: CheeseDream says my action is "not a very BPOV thing to do" which to me is just one more prrof that he does not understand NPOV or the Wikipedia process, which is collaborative. There was a little revert war brewing on a page, and I thought that rather than engage in an endless discussion with CheeseDream, who seems either not to understand or agree with anything I say, the best sollution (in my opinion, better than mediation) is to braoden the discussion -- to get more Wikipedians involved. I thus asked Pedant if he would comment. Note: I did not ask him for support, and I did not ask him to take any action against CheeseDream. I asked only for comment. Pedant himself wonders why I asked him. It certainly isn't because of some conspiracy against NPOV, as CheeseDream suggests. The fact is, I know little about Pedant and have no idea whether he agrees with me or not. What I do know is this: he commended on an earlier version of the article, or he made some edit, or somehow expressed some interest in the topic earlier. That is the only reason I asked him to comment. I looked at the history of the article and talk pages and left messages for a few people who had been involved earlier. That's it. I do not see how inviting a broader discussion is in any way bad; on the contrary it is what we should strive for at Wikipedia. CheeseDream is now slandering me by accusing me of orchestrating a conspiracy; he is exploiting the concept of NPOV to justify his exclusion of points of view other than his own; he is discouraging a more general discussion which is essential to the collaborative process of Wikipedia. These are procedural issues and on these alone I think CheeseDream has been acting in a malicious and damaging way. Slrubenstein

If you wanted mediation, then why did you only choose people whose edits and contributions to talk pages supported your view? There were others who were on other sides, you didnt, for example ask the Rev of Bru, who nethertheless contributed. I asked RFC which is a neutral thing to do. CheeseDreams 17:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thats all very well but is there a particular reason to have this discussion on my talk page? ;) The Rev of Bru
Sorry.CheeseDreams 17:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thought You'd Like to Know[edit]

Thought you might be appreciate being aware of this:User_talk:Slrubenstein#Just_thought_you_should_know

(Don't know who left the above link here)

You also might like to know about User_talk:Grunt/archive3#URGENT: Opposition to "Sam_Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade

Oh, by the way, there are votes on "Some skeptics" at the bottom of the Jesus talk page (use the menu) CheeseDreams 17:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam[edit]

Could you watch Jesus and textual evidence, as Sam seems to insist on removing the note about Gnostics believing Jesus as allegory, not reality, which is quite distorting to the section mentioning their evidence? CheeseDreams 11:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus[edit]

Mpolo has created a project, thought you might like to join it.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Jesus

CheeseDreams 21:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Help Requested[edit]

Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?

It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page. 00:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediation[edit]

It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Slrubenstein

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams and Amgine

User:Slrubenstein vs. User:The Rev of Bru re: Jesus

Comments regarding this issue have been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/SV:SR-Rob - Your comment is requested. RFM listing: RFM#SR,RoB -SV|t 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be making changes to Jesus/Bible related articles without answering my messages, inline with the mediation process. I have now protected "Alleged inconsistencies..." article, until disputes involving you, SR and edits to religious articles have been resolved. Further avoidance of will be grounds for a case before the arbitration committee. -SV|t 19:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew[edit]

You have been named as one of the alledged "group" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ril Group-New Violation-Authentic Matthew --Ron. 14:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cited Authors Bios Subpage[edit]

Dear Rev:

Can you provide citations where the scholars on your list deny the existence of Jesus? I have been working on the footnotes in the main Jesus article to chronicle who supports the general view that he existed and those who advocate the nonexistence hypothesis. I am especially interested, since I have yet to find a single historian that advocated that viewpoint.

I'm also a bit puzzled, since the Paula Fredrickson book I consulted states clearly that Jesus existed. Anyway, I'd appreciate the citations. It will make our article more complete. --CTSWyneken 15:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)