User talk:TParis

Image

Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at [1]. It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - TP 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per WP:TPO. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - TP 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - TP 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

30 year old campaign and still running.

So. Fucking. What.

Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed

Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing,

And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - TP 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more [2] I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian-hating rhetoric

You have no idea. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I could make several comments about how I have plenty of idea and how I am well aware of the hateful rhetoric that has been spilled in the name of Christianity and how you arn't some kind of guru of sekrits that no one else knows, but instead I'm just going to laugh at your ridiculous attempt to sound threatening and patronizing.--v/r - TP 07:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Threatening? That you see hate and threats in what I have said is sad. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That you have such a terrible opinion of two billion people is sad. That you insist on acting on that opinion on Wikipedia and ABF about Christian Wikipedians is wrong.--v/r - TP 17:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it sounds like blatant trolling, but if you really feel this way you should not be allowed to participate in Christianity-related topics, broadly construed, because you are unable to assume good faith of every editor who is Christian or will be interpreted as Christian. I'm sure there is plenty of policies to go on here, but your inability to be rationale, let alone impartial, represents a major concern about your involvement in the area. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I am extremely frustrated by this topic. I've been accused of saying all kinds of horrible things, as has Hilo48. I certainly haven't said such things, and I don't believe that Hilo48 has either. Every group in the world has its biases, and those biases need to be weighed when evaluating statements they make. I don't view Muslim pronouncements about what a wondrous person Muhammad was uncritically, and if I find there's some statement that Muslims predominantly believe and others tend not to support, I think that needs to be labeled. Rastafarian statements about Haile Selassie need to be weighed differently than other opinions on Haile Selassie. Similarly, statements by Christians and Muslims about Jesus of Nazareth need to be weighed differently than the opinions of others (and differently than each other: note that Muslims believe that Jesus still lives in the flesh, having been taken by God prior to the crucifixion and his living body maintained in perpetuity).

That doesn't mean that any of these groups is bad, evil, stupid, or anything: it simply means that they possess a strong tendency to view things in a certain way that needs to be taken into account. When any of them make statements that aren't supported by people outside the group, those statements become highly suspect. That is completely differently from assuming that someone is operating in bad faith: I don't think, nor have I ever claimed, that there is a conspiracy among Christian and Muslim historians to deceive or trick others, nor do I think that any of them is actually misrepresenting evidence. I do think that the weight they give to things is different than the weight other groups would apply, and I think that when it comes to making judgement calls about uncertain things, they are likely to make those judgement calls differently than others. That's what a bias is: not a weakness, not stupidity, not a moral failure, but a tendency to view things and judge things in one fashion more often than another.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww - Anytime you judge an entire group of people based on stereotypes, you've generalized and discriminated. Read your comments on ANI and see how many times you've made sweeping statements about what Christians are capable of. You have been pretty mild, but you've lumped your hat in with HiLo48 who has been seriously discriminative. Some folks, like me, might be more inclined to try to cooperate with you if you weren't teamed up with HiLo48.--v/r - TP 18:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't relied on stereotypes, unless you believe that "people are more likely to decide that there is evidence that the things they worship exist than they are to decide that there is not evidence that the things they worship exist" is a stereotype. For some reason, people read statements like that as "absolutely incapable of using objective reasoning". I haven't said the latter, and it's frustrating to see people respond to my statements as if I had. I haven't seen Hilo48 say such things either: if he has, please point one out.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. I have certainly said that Christians cannot possibly believe that Jesus didn't exist, and that makes their contributions to a discussion on whether he did or not fairly pointless, but I certainly don't believe I expressed hatred towards Christians. If you knew more about my life beyond the Internet, you would understand how ridiculous that allegation is. Hence my initial comment above. HiLo48 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If I say the sky is blue, I'm not saying the sky doesn't turn shades of red in the evenings. And yet, by leaving it out, I'm only communicating that the sky is blue and I'm not sharing my understanding that the sky is capable of being red. If it is true that you say "A" but you don't mean "Always A" then you need to say that and not expect it to be implied. As far as HiLo48 goes:

• "Obviously Christians are biased when it comes to the question of whether Jesus existed. By definition, they believe that he did. A non-Christian can take an objective view."
• "A Christian who says Jesus existed has added nothing of value to the discussion, because a Christian must believe that Jesus existed. Any source written by a Christian can therefore be safely ignored in this discussion."
• "But Christians believe he did, so their opinion isn't really of any value in the discussion. Christians are, by definition, biased on the question of the existence of Jesus."
• "An atheist can believe that Jesus existed, or didn't exist. A Christian cannot make such choice."
• "Suitable evidence could convince an atheist that Jesus existed. By definition, nothing can convince a Christian that he didn't exist."
• "A Christian should not require concrete evidence of Jesus' existence. That's what faith is about. On the other hand, a Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not exist."

This compromised a majority of HiLo48's comments. I'll reserve my judgement for how you respond to the evidence presented here. There is no possible way to say that HiLo48's uses of "never", "nothing can", "cannot" ect is definitive and not meant to read as "absolutely incapable of using objective reasoning".

HiLo48's comments are ad hominem - about the person - and do not have anything to do with content of articles. Whether or not a source is from a Christian doesn't matter - what matters is if it is valid science and academics by the definition of science that we weigh every other type of academia. Whether the author was objective, whether it was peer reviewed, is the journal it was published in known for academic integrity, was the scientific method followed, was the sample size large enough, what was the margin for error, ect. No other criteria, such as religion, is necessary. Any concerns that someone would have stemming from religion is dealt with by the other questions. And so, using religion as the basis for objection to a source is discrimination.--v/r - TP 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that HiLo48 has blurred two issues together. I still don't see any form of hate speech there. I believe that a Christian is fully capable of coming to the conclusion that there isn't sufficient historical evidence that Jesus existed and that he must take the issue of Christ's existence on faith alone. He's less likely to come to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient than others, but he may well be capable of it. It is true that a Christian, by definition, believes that Christ existed, but that is a different thing than believing that there is adequate historical evidence to justify the belief on an objective basis. The rest of your argument is simply incorrect: when the topic is a cornerstone of some religions, the religion of the source needs to be taken into account when evaluating bias. In this case, we have an article dominated by Christian sources being presented as if it represents a worldwide consensus of historians, and the bias isn't adequately addressed in the article.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

[After edit conflict] To TP - There's a lot of words there, and I cannot guarantee that I will interpret all of them in the way you intend (we obviously come from different cultures and language variants), so can you answer a simple question? Can a Christian believe that Jesus did not exist?

Oh, and where is the hate in my words? HiLo48 (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A Christian can believe that there is no scientific evidence that Jesus existed. In fact, that fits just dandy with our 'faith' requirement. The hate speech is your smears that Christians are incapable of being objective. As if we are drones.--v/r - TP 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of people in every religion who do not consider their scriptures or foundational myths to be literally true, or particularly reliable in a historical or scientific sense. Some may treat them as conveying only figurative or allegorical messages about the human condition, or assign them to a ‘spiritual plane’ that’s distinct from the world we normally experience. Others may belong for cultural, social, or political reasons that have little or nothing to do with what they think of the doctrine. So I think it is indeed stereotyping to make assumptions about what people actually believe, let alone how these supposed beliefs may influence their behaviour, merely from their self-identification as a member of a religion—especially when it’s a ‘top-level’ designation like Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam, each of which comprises a broad range of denominations, sects, & cults that can differ enormously. To the specific question, IIANM there are even some Christian clergy who deny the historicity of Jesus, so the answer must be yes.—Odysseus1479 20:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll tell you one ting that bothers me here. The fact that people can't indent properly! The indenting above is so confusing, I've given up. As often seems to happen with religion, we have two answers above, only one of them a direct Yes or No, but I think I can deal with that.

To TP, could you ever, as a Christian, say that Jesus didn't exist? If not, you are coming from a position of bias on this subject. There is one conclusion in this discussion that you could never arrive at. I don't have that bias. (I have plenty of others.) I don't hate you for that, but it would be nice if you could simply acknowledge it.

To Odysseus, I can accept from what you have said that some people who call themselves Christian don't really believe all the details that more hard core adherents believe. Many are nothing more than cultural Christians, never think about religion, and don't really believe any of it. That makes a nonsense of some of our articles about Christianity and what it is, and of those who post as if 2 billion people think just like them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What I believe and what science can prove are two different things - as Kww said above. You are the only person here who cannot separate them.--v/r - TP 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

While I certainly don't hate you, I am getting frustrated with your unwillingness or inability to face and answer a simple question. It adds to my growing impressions about your thinking processes and biases here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your question is a false dilemma fallacy. Even Kww has said, pretty directly, that a belief in something and accepting that science can prove it are not the same things. That you continue to WP:IDHT really demonstrates something about your thinking process and your biases. Even Kww, who has the same general opinion as you, has clearly said that you "[have] blurred two issues together". You should take a hint. @Kww: Perhaps now that you comprehend the issue that I've identified, you can explain it to him?--v/r - TP 22:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Must be a cultural difference. I believe it always makes things clearer if you answer the simple question first, then qualify your answer. When you only give the qualification, I tend put you in the same basket as politicians who never answer the question. This is the Internet. We are from different cultures and language variants. Language must be 100% clear. It's obvious you have failed to understand my position. (I don't hate anyone, hence the title of this thread.) Hiding real positions behind qualification and obfuscation is guaranteed to lead to confusion and annoyance. Could you ever, as a Christian, say that Jesus didn't exist? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, your question is a false dilemma which makes it inappropriate. It assumes a belief and a belief that science can prove the belief are one and the same. They are not. It is a false dilemma because it assumes that you can only believe or disbelieve that Jesus existed and fails to account for a third option of believing that he existed but disbelieving that science can or has proven he existed. If you want an answer, ask an appropriate question. If you can't get that, you shouldn't be editing articles where the distinction is relevant.--v/r - TP 23:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now there's a perfect example. I would never assume that a belief and a belief that science can prove the belief are one and the same. If you have been working from that premise, it means that there's even more about my position that you don't understand, and that YOU are the one making assumptions. Perhaps if you asked me some simple questions for clarification... HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, as I said, you are conflating two issues. Yes, you are right that it's not possible to be a Christian or Muslim and believe in the non-existence of Christ. However, it is possible to be a Christian or Muslim and believe that the historical record is too incomplete to demonstrate his existence through analysis of historical records. The issue is one of bias: it's most certainly true that Christians and Muslims are less likely to come to the conclusion that the historical record is inadequate than other people, not that it is impossible for them to do so. By taking it to the extreme of saying that Christian opinion needs to be completely discounted (as opposed to being appropriately labeled, counterbalanced, and segregated), you are making an issue that it is hard to find agreement on impossible to find agreement on.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I can separate the two issues. I'm not convinced that all here who call themselves Christian can. And as for those faceless Biblical scholars, who will ever know? Oh, and I still insist that I don't hate anybody. (I do find some very confusing.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly Christians that cannot separate the two. That doesn't mean there aren't Christians that can. When discussing bias, it doesn't cause anything but trouble to overstate things or overgeneralize, especially when you are trying to persuade people that their own biases might be getting in the way, because it's difficult for people to recognize their own biases. That's part of their very nature. If you are trying to get someone to have an epiphany about their own biases, clear, logical, and sympathetic statements are the key.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

^^ What this guy said. Written perfectly.--v/r - TP 01:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you still think I hate Christians? HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Depends, do you still think sweeping statements about any group of people is appropriate?--v/r - TP 01:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think making generalizations about a demographic is appropriate?--v/r - TP 01:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes. It could be argued that some of my wording you objected to above was inappropriate, but, depending on one's definition of a Christian, I think it's still true to say that a Christian cannot believe that Jesus did not exist. And that was certainly the gist of most of my comments. I still also believe that most, if not all Christians will approach this topic with bias because of that. But that wasn't why I came here. None of what I have just said involves hate. I still don't understand your use of the word against me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

BLPCRIME

Hey TP, I can't seem to find the wording in WP:BLPCRIME policy forbidding reliably sourced content describing the penalties for crimes the subject has been charged with, would you mind showing that to me? Also, I don't know that it's so much a 'prediction' as it is just a statement of fact. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 22:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Has the BLP subject been given those punishments? If not, why would they be in an article about the BLP? They arn't about the subject. When - and if - the subject gets convicted by a court of law, and then goes to sentencing, and then after the sentence has passed - then and only then is it appropriate to put in a biography of a living person what that punishment is.--v/r - TP 23:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the potential penalty is mentioned in regard to the subject and the crime they are charged with, so it indeed is about the subject; and per policy, the whole "editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" is "For people who are relatively unknown" - which does not apply to Rick Perry. So I don't believe including the penalty in this case violates BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 23:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, President Obama is being sued for violating the constitution by the GOP. Do you think it's appropriate to say that the President has the potential to be jailed?

It is not about the subject at all, it's tabloid journalism. They are filling blank space or air time. It has nothing to do with the subject.--v/r - TP 23:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with saying something like "Obama has been charged with x crime which carries a max penalty of x years in a thumb rack' or what not. Even so, would that be a violation of BLP that exempts one from EW? Dreadstar ☥ 23:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

TP: I hope that you mind me commenting here. As the person who added the content, and have edited many hundreds of BLPs, I really have to question the validity of your interpretation of the policy. You would be correct if someone wrote that Perry is going to prison for 99 years, but what was written was that the charges carry a potential penalty of up to 99 years. This is almost verbatim what out journalistic sources say (MSNBC, Fox News, New york Times, The Guardian, Chicago Tribune and Newsweek). There's nothing sensationalistic about it. If Obama is ever impeached, then the potential penalties reported in reliable sources would be equally relevant and could be included in his bio according to our policies.- MrX 23:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation, but let's try Bold, Revert, Discuss, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and undue weight/NPOV. Those issues should be worked out on the Talk page, consensus formed for an entry(or not) after the first revert of contentious material. So we should stop claiming BLP exemptions for edit warring, and stop inserting contentious material without consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a matter for consensus, not 'EW with a claim of BLP exemption.' The matter should have been brought to a noticeboard or admin before it devolved into the edit warring that it did. I would be inclined to unblock if the editor recognizes this, admits it and says they won't do it again. Dreadstar ☥ 23:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

When a claim of BLP is made, the material is supposed to be removed until there is a consensus to insert it. Not the other way around.--v/r - TP 01:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I like that, where is that in policy? Does any "claim of BLP" exempt you from EW or 3RR? And that's not what happened here, the claim of BLP came after the editwarring, it should have been brought up right away instead of almost as an afterthought. And there was edit warring over clearly non-BLP-Violating material in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 01:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here*:

• WP:BLP: "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."
• WP:BLP: "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism."
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Applicability_of_the_BLP_policy: "Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material."

Thanks.--v/r - TP 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I found it at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but unfortunately the claim of BLP was made after the fact and the supposed, specific BLP violations were not even provided on the talk page. So really, none of that provides an exemption from edit warring or 3RR. Dreadstar ☥ 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said it did. The block was a good block - I wasn't saying I'd unblock at all.--v/r - TP 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, sorry, I misunderstood. Thanks, I appreciate the conversation tho, definitely enlightening and interesting! Many thanks TP! Dreadstar ☥ 01:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably my fault, I can see how my replying on his talk page could give off that impression but I was only commenting on what you guys were commenting on - the content itself.--v/r - TP 01:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Wrap-up of some recent external reviews Interview: World War I editors Op-ed: TomStar81 on the outbreak of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to assess/close AN thread

Hi TParis! Since you closed the previous discussion on this topic, and we currently are looking for an uninvolved admin to assess the discussion, I thought I would ask you if you were available to take on the burden of closing this AN discussion. Your assistance would be invaluable but if you can't or don't want to, there is no reason that you would have to, so it's no problem. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

TP - History and Historicity are related, but separate concepts. Historicity is that which “defines history and thus distinguishes it from ‘nature’ or from the ‘economy’” and “signifies the meaning we intend when we say of something that is ‘historical’.”

I've found authoritative sources to show that religious and secular historians generally have different research agendas, and use differing methodologies -- which, in the case of religious historians, often include submerged value considerations (That is, they often start with some presuppositions that secular historians wouldn't, and often are more interested in "religious truth" than "historical truth."

But, despite these common differences, I've seen no research to suggest that we can disambiguate between secular and religious historicity in a way that wouldn't be a POV fork. So, I think the only solution is to, where possible, explicitly cite a sources presuppositions. For example, James Dunn is quite forthright that he accepts, as a starting point, the reliability of the gospels -- unless otherwise proven unreliable. So, when he says that the baptism and crucifixion are historical certainty, he's probably speaking of a religious truth, rather than a historical truth. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please re-instate ThinkingRock page

Good morning,

You deleted ThinkingRock page a while back because there was not enough external links included. We have since produced a new version of the software product, re-built our website and have received more reviews. Could you please re-instate the page so that I can add the missing information.

Thank you.

Best regards from Australia,

Claire Lemarechal (user id ClaireLem)