User talk:Eschoir

Proposed finding of fact and remedy in arbitration case

Due to your use of the name "Eschoir" I have proposed a finding of fact, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir, and a remedy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic/Proposed_decision#Eschoir_2. This is not based on an analysis of your editing, but on use of a provocative name. You may participate in the case and contest the finding and remedy if you wish. Fred Bauder 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to participate but I am inexperienced in the ways of Wiki defense. Eschoir 21:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You put your objection on the wrong page, but it is welcome. You can put it on the talk page or make a statement on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, or on the /Evidence or /Workshop pages. Fred Bauder 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Eschoir 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying your Proposal of Fact. I have no problem with your current formulation.

Is it the screen name you have a problem with? Would a different screen name be your preferred remedy? Eschoir 02:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Come September, I will have used this screen name for ten years. I felt it would be disingenuous not to use it. Eschoir 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please do not post again on User talk:DeanHinnen. There is no reason to further inflame the situation. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Free Republic

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Eschoir! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Edits made to Free Republic Evidence

I removed your edits to my section. Feel free to add or edit your own personal section of evidence as you see fit (including referencing mine). I removed it because 1) its contrary to wiki policy to edit others evidence sections, 2) I personally don't want to discuss the details of the his case in mine section as its not relevant (only the question of identity is relevant). Dman727 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Eschoir 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The indefinite community ban of User:BryanFromPalatine for tendentious editing, personal attacks, block evasion and disruption is endorsed. The ban also applies to User:DeanHinnen and all other proxies or sockpuppets of BryanFromPalatine. User:Fairness And Accuracy For All is banned from Wikipedia for one year. The articles Free Republic and Democratic Underground are placed on article probation. It is expected that these articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. Either article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user, and users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Job

I think your recent edits to the FR article are really good. --BenBurch 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

News Time

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 012 – April 2007
Beatles News On Friday 30th March, a deranged fan was held after attempting to force his way into Paul McCartney's mansion. See here for more details. Apple Corps continues to make news, after the recent settlement with Apple Computer over the use of the Apple trademark. On April 10th, the company announced that long-time chief executive Neil Aspinall had stepped down and had been replaced by American Jeff Jones. It was also announced that another long term dispute, this time with EMI over royalties, had been amicably settled prior to Aspinall's departure.[1][2] Project News The article "Jeff Jones (music industry executive)" suddenly becomes of top importance in the Apple sphere of Beatledom. User:Kingboyk has created a stub on the man, but the article needs urgent beefing up (including basic biographical data such as date and place of birth) and, if possible, a photograph of the new Apple chief executive. Mimi Smith promises to have the last word over John yet again; her article is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Brian Epstein is a current GA candidate. See the Status board for more article news. 2 new articles have been listed in the Project Log since 1 March: Tony Barrow and Jeff Jones (music industry executive). With the debate over "the Beatles" vs "The Beatles" continuing to cause ill feeling and a number of resignations from the project from advocates on both sides, Kingboyk attempted to diffuse the situation by blanking the Project Policy page and tagging it as {{historical}}. Although this unilateral action hasn't been reverted as of the time of writing, the reaction was mixed, with two members rejoining the project and others stating their disagreement. With the issue still not resolved, the page was sent to Miscellany for Deletion, for the wider community (and WikiProject The Beatles members) to consider the issue. Member News The membership list has been trimmed, with inactive members listed seperately to help gauge the status of the project. If you've been incorrectly listed as inactive, please don't be offended - just move yourself back to the main list.	The Rutles: The legendary group who inspired lesser imitators like "The Beatles". WikiWorld, March 2007 From the Editors This has been a tumultuous month for the project yet again. We need your input on how the project should work and what it's role should be. And we need to start getting Featured Articles, folks! :) Next issue This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 013 – May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Contributors to this Issue Kingboyk (Lead Editor) Andresguacamayo (Editor)
Complete To Do List Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

BetacommandBot 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

Hello Eschoir, I just wanted to remind you to mind the 3RR, which you technically violated on the Free Republic article ([3], [4], [5], [6]) If you persist in reverting before consensus has been formed through discussion, you may be blocked, or banned from the article, as Free Republic is on probation. Please keep a cool head, and thanks for understanding, Prodego ^talk 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. FreedomAintFree 02:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Prodego: Thanks for the advice. I disagree. The 3rr prohibits the reversion of a single editor's work. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" The Freepers are guilty of violation of the 3R by proxy. So far, Fredomaintfree (a Bryan sockpuppet) has reverted me [#1], I reverted him, he reverted me[#2], I reverted him, and then proxy RWR (second editor) reverted me[#3], I reverted him, then third editor reverted me[#4], I replied with new content.

No attempt by the freepers has been made to discuss changes. "When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."

Check your facts. Thank you for your watchfulness.Eschoir 02:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:FreedomAintFree may be offensive or unwelcome. In case you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, particularly to userpages. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Wow. Unsigned! Welcome back Bryan!Eschoir 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, sockpuppetry has been a continual problem at this article. The WP:3RR does not require the same editor to be reverted, only the same content. I will try to make sure that this is resolved, I recommend you bring this up on the talk page, and if there is support and no grounded objection after a day or so, add it. In this way consensus is formed and conflict is averted. Prodego ^talk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the 3R rule differently, insofar as the word "editor" is singular. I appreciate your input. Eschoir 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FreedomAintFree is banned user BryanFromPalatine

Please follow up on the case I filed. Thanks.64.145.158.163 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia and Homosexuality

Greetings! Please take a look at those articles. Left-wingers and Nambla members are blatantly trying to censor them. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies have found a clear link between homosexuality and pedophilia. See this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality#Homosexuality_and_Pedophilia MoritzB 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit War at Son of God

You seem to be involved in a rather heated edit war at Son of God with another user. Not to take sides in any way, but when you use words like "vandalism" in your edit summary inappropriately, it is bad form. Vandalism has a very narrow definition at Wikipedia, and the edits you are contesting are definiately NOT vandalism. They may have other problems, and I take no stand on whether you or the other editor(s) involved are in the right or in the wrong. I am only here to note that 1) edit wars are not healthy 2) content disputes should be hammered out on talk pages rather than by repeated reversions (or near reversions) of the same material and 3) just because you disagree with another editor's opinion, that does not make their work vandalism. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Εύχαριστία

There must be some meaningful way to distinguish the Koine usage of eucharistia in the NT from The Eucharistia (rite). I imagine Latin writers would just quote the Greek, but is there a way to express the difference the defininte article makes in English, but in Greek? Otherwise November 22 becomes American Eucharist.

It has become interesting to me that the thanksgiving aspect of Thannksgiving withered so early in comparison with the dominance of the rememberance aspect.Eschoir 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the thanksgiving aspect can be seen as still dominant for the Christian Churches that have preserved ancient traditions (and that constitute the great majority of Christians). What one might call the essential part of the Eucharistic liturgy, the Eucharistic Prayer or Anaphora part, which follows what is called the Liturgy of the Word or of the Catechumens and the Preparation of the Gifts, is introduced, both in the Latin and Greek rites (if necessary, I could check about the ancient Syrian, Coptic, etc. rites, but I expect they do the same), with the solemn exhortation, "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God." Perhaps it is different in some more recently invented rites with which you may be familiar.

That thanksgiving was already the dominant aspect even before Ignatius wrote his letters is shown by the fact that the term he used as an already established term to refer to the rite that the Wikipedia article is about was "the Thanksgiving" (ἡ εὐχαριστία. In Greek, the article is used with this word to mean both "the thanksgiving" and "the Thanksgiving". In the time of Ignatius, the distinction between upper-case and lower-case had not yet been invented.

You realize, of course, that the Eucharist has many other aspects apart from those of thanksgiving and remembrance, and that speaking of one aspect does not mean ignoring the others. In the popular mind, most attention is given, I suppose, to the aspect of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And there are many others. Lima 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It might seem more dominant if "thanksgiving" had been italicized in the article, rather than "remembrance."Eschoir 06:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with something in the article, take it to the talk page and don't address it by leaving inaccurate and insulting edit summaries. Lima fixed your damage already, but "Eucharist" is how it's rendered in the source. (A Protestant source with a decidedly anti-Catholic slant in its commentary, by the way.) It is, in any event, highly nonstandard to transliterate χ with a k.

Unless you reply soon to the issue I raised about your table, I'll be cutting it. It's inaccurate as it stands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your query on my Talk page concerning what the article is supposed to be about has an obvious answer: it is supposed to be about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist". People do not call "all final meal rituals" (a hypothesis of yours about the subject of the article) the Eucharist. I fear the phrase "all final meal rituals" shows confusion between the Last Supper and the Eucharist/Lord's Supper/etc. The Last Supper was Jesus' final meal. The Eucharist is not a final meal: it, as the article says, the rite* that Christians** (repeatedly) perform in order to fulfil the instruction that they believe Jesus gave at his Last Supper to ...

You ask whether the article is "about the PHRASE, or the WORD". Neither. It is about the rite. Anything it says about the word or phrase or expression or whatever you want to call it is merely ancillary. And much (most?) of what it does say about the word or phrase is due to controversy (to which you have added and continue to add) about the proper term to use to describe the rite.

You complain that you still have no idea of the antecedent for "this" in "Do this in remembrance of me". The article, I repeat, is not about the Last Supper. It is about the rite that most Christians perform in order to fulfil the instruction that they (not Eschoir) believe Jesus gave.

You complain that the article shows "obvious Catholic bias". What your attacks are directed against is the belief of almost all Christians (of whom Catholics are only about half) that Jesus gave instructions to carry out the rite that they perform. The article rightly set out to describe the rite and the belief behind it, but it did not and does not set out to prove that the belief is well-founded, nor to prove it ill-founded, though of course it does tell how far back the belief can be traced and it reports on controversies about the belief. That is not bias, one way or the other. On the other hand, your interventions certainly seem to have the one precise aim of proving the belief unfounded (they sometimes give me the impression - but that surely cannot be - of suggesting that the rite really does not even exist!) and work must then be done on the article to make your affirmations neutral and objective or at least to balance the bias you introduce.

* I have left in the article your addition of "or act of worship" that I think is not only unnecessary but unhelpful; in comparison to some of the profound alterations that I am slowly remedying, this is a decidedly minor defect.

** "Christians" does not have to mean absolutely all Christians. "Most" was added only on your insistence. Lima 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I find it hopelessly confusing as to goals. However, if you can get language to stick in the first paragraph stating that this article is not a critical or scholarly examination of the history or origins of the liturgy or liturgies, but merely about what is normally understood by "the Eucharist" in snapshot form across the denominations, I wiill fold my tent and steal silently away. That is a useless article, and one not deserving of my time.Eschoir 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Don't presume to lecture me on any subject, particularly this one, and in such a puerile manner. You don't have the slightest clue about how to evaluate sources. Not all are equally neutral, not all are equally useful, and not all receive equal consideration. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I take that as your declaration of war against WP:NPOV, the most important principle of Wiki.Eschoir 14:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a declaration that you haven't the slightest glimmer of understanding of what you're talking about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So enlighten the glimmerless. With all due respect, are you saying "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors" means sourced views must be neutral, and it falls to you to evaluate other editor's sourced contributions as to whether they are are neutral enough, and significant enough to be worthy of equal consideration with your views?

I'm really conducting this Socratic inquiry for your own good.Eschoir 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a valid Socratic inquiry. A Socratic inquiry proceeds gradually and carefully from first principles, ensuring (among other matters) that all understand the terms in use in the same way before proceeding to a new question. With regard to this question you have shown that you do not understand what is meant by "reliable sources" and have further demonstrated an unwillingness to be educated. For example, you continue to insist, despite repeated explanations to which you have not bothered to reply in any substantive way, that obsolete sources are as reliable now as they were at the time they were written. In essence, you appear to understand it to mean sources in agreement with the point of view you want to push. You also don't understand what is meant by original research, as indicated by the fact that it's plainly at issue, but you don't mention it here. Without meaning to, you have skipped a step in your inquiry.

You also need to consult WP:CONSENSUS. As I said, there would have been much less friction all around here were you willing to actually discuss issues raised. Instead, we find you editing articles willy-nilly (often in violation of WP:POINT and WP:SELF) while leaving issues raised on the talk page unanswered -- and then you feign shock when other editors act accordingly! Please take some time to learn to work with others, and you'll have an easier time here, assuming you get past the sockpuppet discussion. (A "secret denunuciation" that Lima announced to you on your talk page, after discussing it publicly with me on mine? How do you expect to be taken seriously, saying such things?)

But, to nibble on the bait, no. However, biased sources cannot be presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship should be represented as such; and those that are thoroughly discredited or obsolete don't represent "significant views" in any meaningful sense. My views are neither here nor there, but yes, the neutrality and significance of any source is up for discussion by any editor at all. Part of the problem is, as I said, that you haven't really been willing to discuss these things. It's not as if I haven't tried. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your nibble. I must plead disability (for the first time publically) in nnnot beinig able to reply as facilely and in as great length as I once would have. You may have nnnoticed problems in my typing. I might spend mor time in talk were it not for the painful tremors which limit my right-hand movement and make editing torture.

Socratic inquiry was something less tahn you described when I went to Law School.

Assuming this is true: biased sources cannot be presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship should be represented as such; and those that are thoroughly discredited or obsolete don't represent "significant views" in any meaningful sense, you are not (or rather your words are not) the ones in which to evaluate the sources and dole out the consideration of article content except pperhaps in Talk. Isn't our official role neutrality, with the caveat that we can print sourced views that say what we would like to say in contravention of the puerile nonsense that that other jerkball editor just posted? Isn't that what distinguishes Wiki from a partisan bulletin board, like Free Republic?

I actually disagree with your formulation as accurately describing wiki. Biased sources can be and routiinely are presented as if they are neutral, or on equal footing with those that are, many times because the editor is similarly biassed (true believers are in this category) and doesn't see it, and must be countered by views from published secondary and tertiary sourcesthat recognize the bias, reference it, and explain it; views contrary to the overall consensus of scholarship must be represented as such by published sources (themselves open to criticism of bias), and not original content; and you and I haven't the authority to edit content that is thoroughly discredited or obsolete except to add content from publlished secondary or tertiary sources which points out the shortcomings of the disfavored views. Therefore, you, or you and an ally, are not authorized to judge what comprises "significant views" in any meaningful sense.

We ahve to lay out the facts, sort out the published views, and hope the reader will reach the conclusions we prefer, but we can't publilsh our own conclusions, even those based on our excellent understanding of primary sources. That's a chat room.

Bias, even majoritarian, consensus bias (the most dangerous kind) will eventually be smoked out if it is not allowed to censor criticism for being insignnificant. Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson wrote, "Anyone who writes, except for money, is a blockhead." Eschoir 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Socratic inquiry is no doubt approached differently in law school than in philosophy. But the undefined term is a way for a mistaken conclusion to appear regardless of approach.

I enjoy a reasoned argument, but an argument where one side employs tactics like shifting ground is annoying. Clearly, in context, that which you quoted from me was about writing a neutral article; "cannot" meant one cannot do that thing and still be adhering to the neutrality principle. It did not mean that it absolutely could not be done, and no one reading it in good faith would take it that way. I know perfectly well that people do this, and it's rather insulting that you think you need to tell me so.

You are simply lying when you say I'm trying to suppress contrary views. What I want to remove is the allocation of undue weight to them. In the humanities, it's frequently the case that one must evaluate an overall consensus of a field in order to decide how to weight different views. We here are in no position to form a judgment on what that consensus ought to be, which is what we'd have to do to remove any "majoritarian bias" -- a term which, incidentally, has no application in this field; it's a purely legal notion. Determining the majority view is exactly how one determines what the primary view of this kind of subject is, whether we agree with it or not. For example: You want to say that there is no evidence of Jesus' existence from contemporary extra-Biblical records? Fine, that's exactly the case. You want to say the first Gospels were not written down for several decades after the events they purport to record? Do that; it's what the consensus says. That there are no extant NT manuscripts from the 1st century? As much as I'd like Professor Thiede's dating of the Magdalen papyrus to be correct, the weight of scholarship is heavily against it, and that's not only what we must report, it's what I'd insist on were anyone silly enough to argue otherwise. (In the case of the article on the papyrus itself, Thiede's views must be given prominence since his claim about it is the chief reason for its notoriety.)

Again, this is a field where much progress has been made since the 1940s, and citing a source from that time as if it were valid today, when the bulk of scholarship between now and then comes down against it, is invalid. We are not, in that case, dealing with a reliable source. We might as well cite 19th century physics textbook and report in heat that the flow of caloric just might be responsible for heat transfer even though modern secondary and tertiary sources will say nothing of the kind. It's absurd.

But I see you have a record of insisting on absurdities, as you did for the footnoting of the correct translation of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ at Son of God, where you're being equally trollish and equally determined to give Crossan's views the same weight as the balance of scholarship. Ridiculous.

Samuel Johnson was an ass. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are simply lying when you say I'm trying to suppress contrary views. What I want to remove is the allocation of undue weight to them. Content certainly doesn't have undue weight when it is deleted. Eschoir 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

With regard to this question you have shown that you do not understand what is meant by "reliable sources" and have further demonstrated an unwillingness to be educated. For example, you continue to insist, despite repeated explanations to which you have not bothered to reply in any substantive way, that obsolete sources are as reliable now as they were at the time they were written. I seaarched WP:RS for the term 'obsolete' and found no iterations. I searched wiki for Encyclopedia Britannica and found an aarticle devooted to the excellence of its content, even back to the 11th edition. I searched Eucharist and see your collective citations of a 1915 encyclopedia. Eschoir 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That encyclopedias go obsolete after a time is the nature of the beast -- actually the nature of any reference set in print -- and it happens no matter how excellent it may be in presenting the state of knowledge on a subject at the time they went to press. That's why they come out with new editions, and why we don't use the 11th edition Britannica as a reliable source.

The article actally says "The 1911 Encyclopædia can continue to be a resource for readers well into the 21st century with some care and discretion in using it." These errors cause me to question your reading comprehension. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Many encyclopedias even issue annual supplements to correct information that has become obsolete over the prior year.

One discovers very little by using simple-minded word searches. If one actually reads WP:RS one finds, at WP:RS#Scholarship:

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic. (Emphasis mine.)

That "more recent research" contradicts your old source is exactly the problem

Name three research-connected contradictions - as opposed to connclusions based on alterenate interpretations of preexistinig primaary sources. Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

otherwise there would be little to object to its use.

That's what I am saying.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You could have short-circuited all of this by instead citing a modern secondary source for the POV you want to push.

Like Crossan, or the Jesus Seminar?Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Where there are "alternative scholarly explanations" we of course should mention them -- but not as if they were the primary scholarly explanation.

How do you propose to measure the "primary scholarly explanation?"Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying all along. (Crossan is a secondary source only to the extent he describes the evidence. He is a primary source for his own analysis and synthesis.

Thats just silly. He's a wiki secondary source until he starts editing here.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The salient point is the breadth of scholarly acceptance of his theories, not how loudly he shouts them out. If he, or a very small coterie surrounding him, is the sole exponent of a theory, it's not worth a mention;

Not even a mention? Prof Thihede getsa mention. And you made up the breadth argument. The word used is 'significant' views.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

no more than we ought to mention -- to bring back my earlier example -- Prof. Thiede's theory on the date for the earliest Gospel ms. Although he shouted very loudly about it indeed, and although I would very much like for it to be true, it has not found acceptance among even a significant minority of paleographers.)

There is no "1915 encyclopedia" being cited.

Do some research on the international standard bible encyclopedia Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The only source around that age actually in use is the old Catholic Encyclopedia, actually completed in 1914, and it is indeed a source that must be used with caution. However, I think you will discover that Catholic theology has not changed all that much in many particulars over the past century, Vatican II notwithstanding. Certainly their Eucharistic theology hasn't changed. Even so, you will note it is not the only source mentioned for the statement it is cited to support.

So its OK to cite old Catholic theology but not other old theology because research has changed it. HmmmEschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I note the date on the citation of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is 1915 -- but the source itself gives a copyright date of 1939.

Right, and Luke gives an authorship of "Luke" - doesn'nt make it so.Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The same standard applies there regardless. It's usable when not contradicted by more recent scholarship. I know of no scholarship that contradicts the statements sourced from it, that the Eucharist occurred at the end of the agape, and that at the agape other food and drink were enjoyed.

Didache 10 has no bread or wine mentioned, beginning middle or end. But what of it?

Surely we don't have to be stupid about evaluating sources. If the consensus of more recent scholarship contradicts an old source, then it's obsolete.

But how do you measure consensus except subjectively, like an online poll?Eschoir 06:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If not, then not. That 19th century physics textbook, so faulty on the subject of heat transfer, would be perfectly reliable as a source for Newton's laws of motion, which are still used now as they were then. The only amplification we'd need from more recent scholarship is that they're valid only under non-relativistic conditions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in going on here. This has descended to the level of idiocy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete

Sorry, but on long reflection I find I must do this. I hope indeed that my suspicion is unfounded. The link given above should surely read Wikipedia: Suspected sock puppets/Fairness And Accuracy For All. Lima 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, a secret denunciation. How perfectly inquisitorial.Eschoir 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my "secret denunciation". Where can I learn something of the "Bryan from Palatine investigation"? Lima 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine - User:DeanHinnen

Eschoir 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's just cut this off so no one wastes any more time. Eschoir contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, and I'm sure that he was closely scrutinized at that time as a possible sockpuppet of FaAfA. So we can all assume that he's not FaAfA, unless some very strong and compelling evidence can be supplied to tie him to FaAfA. This case lacks such evidence, so I'm closing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All" Eschoir 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on my talk page

C.Logan wanted support in an argument where the sources are fairly clear, in dealing with a troll who is insisting on his own way regardless of what any source says. It's my expertise in secondary sources he was interested in. As it happens, those already cited are more than sufficient; the troll is simply refusing to acknowledge them. If you haven't bothered to check out the problem and therefore have nothing meaningful to contribute but a personal slam, please keep out of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, please go away if you have nothing useful to say. The problem is not a lack of citations, which have been supplied in plenty. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what was said. Why you do that I have no idea, since anyone looking (as if they cared) can see what's really there for themselves. I said nothing at all about my "opinion", and that's not what was asked for. Your implication that I had nothing to offer but an "opinion" -- a term you introduced -- is a slam, yes.

What really comes from you not taking a minute or so to check out the situation is that the anon user Logan talked about was trying to introduce his own unsupported claim into the article. Your suggestion that there be footnotes to justify leaving something out that doesn't belong there is astonishing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an unsupported claim, it wwas a poorly supported claim of some signicance. A footnote sourcing Mme Blavatsky would be self rebuttinig. Eschoir 06:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping I read you correctly. Unfortunately, the user didn't seem to take this (comparatively) easy route; from the beginning, he simply dismissed her citation; possibly because he assumed that we could cite those sources directly simply because Blavatsky did so. Obviously, however, this individual must have blinders on, because the text does not support Blavatsky unless one is willing to suspend rational thought. In any case, there are a myriad of other policies to be considered, and there doesn't seem to be satisfaction of them on any level. The verdict appears to be a simple case of mad OR and repetitive disruption. On Jesus, at least, he can be ignored (as it is semi-protected). Iaso, however, has already fetched him a 3RR block.--C.Logan 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)