User talk:Stephan Schulz

Greetings

Hi all!

I'll answer all messages left on this page here, so that a possible discussion is kept in context. Watch this if you are waiting for an answer.

--Stephan Schulz

Archives

2004-12-13 to 2008-04-15

Useful links (courtesy Angela 02:29, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC))

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• help pages
• village pump
• my (Angela's) talk page.

Identity on Commons: commons:User:Stephan Schulz

I'm also Stephan Schulz on the Wikimedia Commons. --Stephan Schulz 15:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dutch law

Hi Stephan,

Where nl:Wikipedia is hosted may be relevant to corporate law, but not to many other kinds of law. I hope this makes it clear. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia en: is under exactly the same jurisdiction as nl: or de:. The Wikimedia foundation is a public charity chartered under Florida law. If you have a personal conflict with another user, national law might apply. I suspect I should point you to WP:LEGAL, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Florida corporate law, only. We are still citizens of our respective countries. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Global warming

I see that you just erased my sentence in the global warming. Your comment is accurate - there is a conspiracy to censor the global warming article. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And we use the UN to force the spurious "theory" of evolution down innocent children's throats, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution is real. The emergence of new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof of that.

The sentence that I added the the global warming article is real, too.

It is you, not me, who is against scientific evidence.

There is a conspiracy to keep certain scientific facts out of the global warming article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Either your sentence is obvious, given the diagram, in which case it is superfluous, or it is not, in which case it is original research. In either case, it is extremely misleading, as it ignores that 1998 was an extreme outlier with one of the strongest El Nino events recorded, and that climate is a long term process that cannot be assessed year to year, but only over longer periods. If you have any "key facts" with reliable sources, you will find me more then willing to address them, and to incorporate them into the articles if they meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Theodor Landscheidt

I've AFD'd TL. IWS claims to find a source for him being a judge, viz [1]. Its a crappy astrology text probably recycling his own biog. Any chance you could find out if he really was, and if so a reliable source for it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find out more about it, but online sources in German are also rare. He seems to have been a judge who did some work on solar cycles as a hobby, and had some weird ideas about astrology as well. In general, people seem to have found him a likable person. Sorry, I could not find more... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to say I'd read this. Thanks for looking William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anže Kopitar

Hi, Stephan. Just letting you know that I toned down my remarks in accordance with your request. However, I don't agree with your argument that the user merely "pointed out that Slovenia did not exist as an independent country"; he quite clearly stated that Slovenia did not exist at all. --WorldWide Update (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied to at User talk:WorldWide Update --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

S. Fred Singer

Is: S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. *What* The Independent Institute *is*, is not in question, this is where this *noted* scientist decided to publish his opinions on the The Great Global Warming Swindle and he is an *expert* who's opinion is germane. Don't erase my contributions without an entry on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service" is an example of WP:PEACOCK. He is also talking about TGGWS in the article you reference, not about AIT. And, with or without your leave, I will edit as I find it appropriate. If I want to discuss some changes I make, I'll usually have that discussion on the appropriate talk page of the article, in this case talk: An Inconvenient Truth. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree that his title and credentials are WP:PEACOCK, if that were the case then we would remove mentions of An Inconvenient Truth being awarded an Oacar and it's box office success. There are no words like "famous" or "acclaimed" in that sentence, it is simply a statement of his position, credentials and past credentials that are completely relevant to the article. I challenge you to point out even *one* word that is even remotely WP:PEACOCK in this sentence:

"S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service"

It might be a bit lengthy, but his credentials are extremely important given the statement I contributed there concerning his opinion of AIT and it's science. Perhaps this discussion is more relevant on the talk page of AIT, but we started it here so it seems appropriate that we'd finish it here. If you disagree, I have no objection to moving it to AIT. By the way, I wasn't saying you couldn't "edit as [you] find appropriate", I was simply asking for you to mention on my talk page when you revert contributions I make, which is a Wikipedia suggestion. Supertheman ^(talk) 00:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges. We mention Singer's credentials on Singer's page, and AIT's awards on the AIT page. We don't repeat Singer's credentials when we mention him elsewhere, and we don't repeat AIT's awards whenever we mention the movie. That's what Wikilinks are for. You may think his credentials important, while I find it more relevant that he hasn't published a decent paper in 20 years, that he jumps between different "it's not us" positions faster than one can keep track off, and that the National Academy has strongly criticized his petition project. All of this can be adequately explained in Singer's own biography. It does not have a place in another article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard S. Lindzen

Lindsen IS quoted as commenting on the BASIC SCIENCE:

"Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.”

Lindzen has, "...long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions" - that is a comment on the science, and refutes Gore's claim that they "agree on the fundamentals". Do not erase my contributions without doing the research.Supertheman (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lindzen is not talking about the science of the movie. It's your original research that assumes that "dire climate predictions" refers to AIT. Lindzen is one of the very few scientists with some skepticism about global warming. But he does not deny that anthropogenic contributions raise atmospheric CO2 or that increased CO2 causes a positive forcing. He does have a somewhat unusual theory that most of the effect will be cancelled by negative cloud formation feedback. I can very well imagine that Lindzen has commented directly on the science of AIT, but if so, you do your homework. The current quote is a comment on the style, not on the substance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is patent sophistry. Lindzen is most certainly commenting on the "science of the movie". Read the quote, please:

"Richard Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has long expressed skepticism about climate predictions, accused Gore in The Wall Street Journal of "shrill alarmism."

Clearly he is commenting on Gore's "predictions" in the movie. Perhaps it would be wise to come to an agreement on the definition of terms.

"Shrill", being an exaggerated cry; "alarmism", being unfounded and baseless warnings. Clearly, when one says that someone is guilty of "shrill alarmism", that means that both the content and manner of their "science" is in question.

From the article itself:

"In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism."

The article references: the scientists, the film and the science. Clearly, Lindzen (and the other scientists) are "talking about the science of the movie". Also, ad homenim attacks on Lindzen "He does have a somewhat unusual theory..." are neither germane or edifying to the debate, don't you think?

Rigidity in your definition of "commenting directly" and blatant ignoring of other statements in the article won't make them go away.Supertheman (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In reference to your WP:3RR warning

I reverted three different things, once... not "more than three". This does not violate policy. Please review the policy before posting irrelevant warnings on my page. Thanks. I noted, however, that you did four yourself. Interesting. Supertheman (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very hard trying not to pull rank here. However, I've been on Wikpedia since 2003. I know WP:3RR and I encourage you to carefully read the policy and to check out WP:ANI/3RR for the existing practice. I can assure you that your edits I referred to will be considered at least 3 reverts by the Wikipedia community and by the admins enforcing Wikipedia rules, and that my edits from today will be considered just two reverts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what *rank* you want to pull (haha), but I think this has gone far enough. The page in question is watched very carefully by many, many editors. It has been returned to it's previous state, despite my cited and relevant contributions, so why are we continuing to discuss this? It has — in my opinion — really gone quite far enough. Don't you agree? Lets strive for some civility here, ok? Supertheman (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[2]. If I say I that I know WP:3RR, I mean it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I already knew you were an admin, Stephan. Supertheman (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Landscheidt

Since I provided all of the relevant information, can you tell me what you see on page provided? And as noted on the article talk page, please confirm, volume, etc. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered at the talk page in question. In general, I prefer to keep the discussion in one place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Singer

I asked William, however your most recent revert suggests you may know. What is the source being used in the following [3]? The publication, magazine, book, whatever, as far as I can see, was not published in 1960, but 1963, and further was not published by Singer himself. There is also the issue of a page missing, and publisher. If you can fill in that information that would be great, that way I can verify the source. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder

Hello. I've started a RfC/U for this editor, and in the evidence section I included part of a discussion he had with you. Fram (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be traveling the next few days, and will be offline most of the time, so there will very likely not be any input by me. Why am I "an uninvolved user" and most others are "an admin"?  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because I didn't realise at the time that you were an admin, and didn't check (insert blushing icon here). I did not mean any disrespect, obviously. Fram (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A contributor of character - Stephan Shulz

I put this on my page also, but I wanted to say it here as well (hope you don't mind, Stephan)

This editor, Stephan Shultz - a person I was in the middle of a heated argument with — cleaned up the mess that I created in archiving my page.

This is an excellent example of how contributors can control their emotions and remain civil and friendly in the midst of (sometimes) emotional circumstances - a lesson I take to heart as well. I just wanted to publicly thanks Stephan for showing his excellent character in helping me out when it would have been easy for him to ignore the situation. Instead he took the time to clean up my mess in a kind and friendly manner. Kudos to a good man. Thank you, Stephan. :-)

PS It might be time for you to archive a bit, my friend! I'd be glad to help, but that would be the blind leading the sighted. Haha. Supertheman (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the sentiment. As far as I'm concerned, a content conflict is no reason to let an easily fixed technical problem stand. Yes, after having looked at my talk page over a fairly fast dial-up connection, I agree that its time to move some of the old stuff out of the way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility remedy

Noted your concerns. If you have any ideas, please leave a note at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Civility_remedy. Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you are forty

In case you missed my reply: [4]. --BozMo talk 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I am...for about 97 more minutes. ;-) More there --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would reply here. It could be worse we could divide up on age and then as I was 41 and 42 ahead of you I would get lumped with you... I am not a fan of Dawkins but partly because popularists irritate me when the subjects are too complicated, also I think he borrows without crediting others too much. As for why I believe things (which was probably rhetorical) I have already told you I wrote this up once here: [5] and probably won't ever repeat it. --BozMo talk 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, people might confuse our friendly banter with a serious flame war. Yes, the question was a rhetorical one - in plain, the question is why people, with essentially the same objective evidence, arrive at very different and usually violently incompatible opinions on relgion - and why those nearly always match the ones of their parents and culture. I've seen your write-up before, but have not, unfortunately, read all of it. But I notice that you essentially discuss memetics in the introduction, which brings us back to Dawkins. I actually became consciously aware of him by accident - I ran out of books in an airport, and got The Ancestor's Tale on sale. I had vaguely heard about The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable in online fora, but never connected them with a particular person, let alone the same person - I'm not good with arbitrary facts like names. And as you probably know, the Creation-Evolution debate and hence religion in general is much less important in Western Europe than in the US. As far as I can make out, Dawkins is scrupulously honest, even if it hurts his argument. He also handles the English language, both written and spoken, in a beautiful way. And, at least in my opinion, he argues from a coherent, consistent, and deeply thought through position. On the other hand, he is fairly weak on the history of religion and philosophy, and has a somewhat cavalier attitude to these topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am off now so Happy Birthday for tomorrow. --BozMo talk 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

...and just when I finished my essay! Thanks anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am just in time to pretend offence at the possible implication in the above that you think I might be from North America. Yes I think Dawkins is pretty honest (including on his lack of originality and ignorance of religion), although I have only skimmed his books. He is also a great communicator. But for goodness sake did any decent mind ever come out of Oxford? Don't bother trying to read my screed by the way. Unlike Dawkins I am an atrocious communicator (although I do have th advantage of being right of course). --BozMo talk 21:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to know that we have one thing in common at least. I've been right ever since I turned 12 ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

To a fellow '67er :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and just on time. Well...do birthdays go by summertime? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, either they go by summertime, or by real birthtime. So when exactly should the congrats be in? Virtual or realtime? ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maths

[6] "Relegated" to the realm of maths? Shurely some mishtake? Elevated you meant. --BozMo talk 06:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I probably meant "limited" or "restricted" or "apply only" or something like that. And I don't even do soccer... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Society is not a "Source"

Hi Stephan

I just wanted to make sure you understood this. Per WP:RS, a source, in the context of when they are used to verify wikipedia content, is not the same thing as the author of the source,(such as the IPCC, NAS, etc.), but rather it's the actual material which was produced by the author. See wikipedia definition of reliable sources below.

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

Hope this helps.

--Sirwells (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a bit splitting hairs. Yes, if we write "the Royal Society is an excellent source for topic X", we refer to their publications or statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be a subtle distinction, but it is a very important one and it was set up that way for a reason. WP:V makes it clear that:

• "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptionally high-quality reliable sources."

• "...the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

• "...the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

None of these criteria fit if you want to consider the author as the source and not the publication/statement being made by the author. You seem to trying to grant absolute infallibility on certain organizations so as to just assume every document, pamphlet, statement, etc coming from them should be arbitrarily excepted without question and without having to meet any of the criteria by which wikipedia content policy measures the credibility of sources. This is not what wikipedia's content policy is about (and is a dangerous way of thinking in my opinion.) Even though the organizations producing the source may be considered as "authoritive" and "credible", none of the documents produced by them are immune to the other policies I mention above. --Sirwells (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is hard to think of any more convincing way to establish a scientific consensus than a declaration by the Royal Society (as the representative of the most important body of scientists) though. However I agree we have to make sure it was a properly authorised officer of the Society and not a tealady covering the switchboard when a journalist rang. --BozMo talk 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Indeed. I do not grant "absolute infallibility" to certain organizations. I do grant them their due weight. The main national academies are the most respected scientific organizations in the world. Their members are usually as free from political and economical pressure as you can be - the members are world-renown scientists, usually tenured, with a long history of successful scientific work. They do not make statements lightly. Their formal statements are among the most reliable sources you can get. And, as far as they make statements on the topic of climate change, they all agree - the US NAS, the Akademie Leopoldina, the Académie des Sciences, the Lincei, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, the Canadian Royal Society. They all agree on the topic and they all agree that there is a consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

User:ScienceApologist

this user has been blocked numerous times (see block log), which is why i don't consider this user "long established" nor "reliable". how can we take users seriously who steadily violate various wiki rules and get blocked for numerous reasons. sincere SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 22:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SA is a valuable contributor. Whatever you think of his contributions or behavior, he is a long-time user. WP:DTTR applies. I also find your template surprisingly badly chosen - deleting bad sources is not "adding commentary or personal analysis". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

At least he keeps the same account, some users manage to get into an edit war, find their own way to WP:3RR, and edit their monobook --all on their first day! It's enough to make a person wonder, what did your block log look like before you used the SomUsr account? R. Baley (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NAC and Global Cooling

I'm well aware of the fact that "NAC shut down" and "Global cooling" ain't exactly the same, but this is not about what me or you are thinking: it's about what the media responded to Bryden's study. And what they say is: Scientists forecast global cold snap and "Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon. There is one half of a sentence ("… several daily newspapers as well as some popular science magazines proceeded on the assumption that global cooling was imminent.") and there are five sources given. Where is the problem? ––Bender235 (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Answered at talk: global cooling. Please keep discussions in one place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you never listen to the opposition you'll never understand why not everyone agrees with you. 98.169.241.244 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror on the wall... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

EU gdp

THIS sounds more like NOT assuming good faith to me :[7]

Please, before you accuse someone of not having a good faith, you have to take a look at the facts, and the reality, and who actually does what.Read my response on the gdp talk page and you will see what is going on. There were attempts to make this whole thing of national importance and there were attempts to blame the whole discussion on sensitivity of certain nationals.This is an obvious and blatant, cynical discrimination against the people. This is shameful and this is absolutely alarming.I was not the one who brought the United States issue to the light.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal). Please keep discussions in one place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to laugh at all. Giving the whole issue nationalistic appearance should not be tolerated. "I understand his anger" what does that supposed to mean? So is it all Americans' fault that the discussion is intense or are they doing this on purpose to provoke people?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are few things lamer than explaining a joke. The smiley ";)", especially the variant with the semicolon ("winking") indicates that the previous statement is intended as a joke and not to be taken serious. This is a convention that's older than the Wikipedia, and in fact older than the WWW. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they were telling that user himself all that with smiling and winking then it would be a joke, but when telling someone behind his back, winking and smiling get a double, completely different meaning.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Doubts getting clear ... --Bhadani (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey, on an edit today you wrote "(ec)", what does it mean? Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ec == edit conflict. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Brusegadi (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer you left me. I expressed further mystification on my own page. Doc Tropics 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing on the IHR web page or in the JHR has any credibility"

That article I cited is published in full by the United States Government Printing Office as an introduction to a US Senate Committee report. See the "Records of the Morgenthau Diary Study, 1953-65. Guide to the Records of the U.S. Senate at the National Archives (Record Group 46))". Is it your view that the United States Senate doesn't have "any credibility"? Or are you of the view that some cyber truck that zooms around the WWW must have bumped into the web page by "accident" and dumped stuff endorsed the United States government?Bdell555 (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, the credibility of the US (or most other governments) is not particularly high for me *coughgitmocoughextraordinaryredition*. But what is more: the printing office is nothing more than indeed a printing press. It has no editorial control. I cannot find the paper you refer to in the National Archives - the only mention of the report seems to be here. Do you have an accessible source that shows this claim in some context? It might be used as a bad example, or the report may be the responsibility of just one crank senator (of the US has had its fair share). Anyways, simply being printed by the Government Printing Office implies no credibility, and being published by the IHR seriously erodes any potential credibility. I don't know if its useful to continue this discussion in three places at once - if you prefer a centralized discussion (I do), I suggest Talk:Holocaust denial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It may seem to have got a bit heated over there but I assure you I mean nothing personally. My apologies if I've been uncivil. I happen to have a very aggressive debating style and I try to push my advantage at pretty much every turn. I respect your engagement with me on this issue, although as I noted you seem to have some genuine antipathy for IHR. In any case, all the best.Bdell555 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I'm fairly robust. I don't grant you having an advantage, of course ;-), but thanks for the good wishes. Yes, I do have a genuine antipathy for the IHR, and I'm fairly certain so has anybody who has ever looked at their crap and has a basic interest in honest history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, without speaking to anything else on IHR, the particular weblink I am attempting to add has real substance to it, in my view, and I like to think I have an interest in honest history. But certainly people can disagree.Bdell555 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, I should have said "push my case". Somehow I had "push my advantage" as a turn of phrase in my mind. I didn't mean to come off so arrogant.Bdell555 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Singer Edits

I have no problem adding the date for context. I did not intend to misrepresent things, rather just the opposite. --GoRight (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Solomon apparently has an interest in misrepresenting, or he cannot read worth shit. Wikipedia never claimed that Singer "believed in Martians" in the present or recent past. It quite properly documents an event in the not-so-recent past. So Solomon' claim about Wikipedia is wrong and his question to Singer is a stupid rhetoric straw man. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw man? Really? What does "article discussing Singer's acceptance of the possibility of an extraterrestrial base on Martian moon Phobos" mean to you? See [8]. --GoRight (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

February 1960. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And you think that the date is significant why? If the point is to make him out to be a crackpot and discredit him for believing in extraterrestrials (a.k.a. UFOs and the like) saying he believed such things in 1960 v.s. today is of little consequence.

You, at least, were willing to allow the direct quote to be included ... which I appreciate. But KDP really just wants to argue about anything I add and he is doing it via edit warring, or so it seems. I have been fairly good on this front, regardless of Raul's assertions to the contrary. I'll revert a few times but if it looks like it is going to be endless I just stop. That is NOT edit warring within limits as Raul suggests. I'm not just coming back every other day and doing it all again and again on the same exact material and constantly pushing the 3RR. Besides, it takes more than one person to edit war.

Why are you guys so attached to this ancient article? Seriously. I don't mean this as a pointy stick here, but if your intent is something other than to ridicule the man then why are you all being so protective on such a trivial item? --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the significance of the date obvious? The fact is that Singer seriously considered Martians in 1960. We report this as an interesting fact. Solomon misrepresents this as if we claimed that Singer considers Martians today. That is the straw man. He then goes on and demolishes it - which is the normal purpose of a straw man. Note that he carefully has not asked Singer if he seriously considered Martians in 1960, as that would possibly not support his deception. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I can see how you might interpret things that way. I am less suspicious of his motives though. I was going to look up some material to relate Singer to Carl Sagan and his comparable beliefs in this area to make the point that, as you say, it is less surprising that people would entertain such possibilities in 1960 as opposed to today. You seem satisfied that the average reader will make this connection, I am less confident thereof.

But this begs the question of why LS would bother to come here to pick a fight if not because he believes what he says. Do you have any theories on what his motive to even bother was? --GoRight (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, after having read a good deal of Solomon's writings (as well as the reaction of some of his subjects), I suspect there are two motives. He is trying to strongly push a political point (either because he believes it, or for less savory reasons), and he is trying to generate controversy to spice up his column and other writings. And of course those two go nicely hand in hand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Stephan - I've started an RFC on GoRight. Your input would be appreciated - Wikipedia:Requests for Comments/GoRight Raul654 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops!

Thanks for pointing that out about this. Misread the header. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)