Jump to content

Talk:Time Cube/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Result of RfAr: In the month of July, 2005, a request for arbitration was left open concerning this article. Both sides were allowed to express their viewpoints. Afterwards, the arbitrators made the following comments. Please leave this section here for reference; any changes will be removed.

For those who haven't been following the discussion... A mostly anon user, referred to as TimeCubeGuy, frequently reverts pages to some variant of this version [1]. The "unofficial" result of the above ArbCom (the case was rejected on grounds that the user was a simple troll/crank) was to shoot this user's edits on sight: that is, if you see the page resembling the page referenced above, it is considered vandalism and should be reverted.

Representation of Website vs. Theory

Now, personally, I believe that the Time Cube is only notable because of its website. Couldn't care less about the theory. There's my POV. Obviously, the theory does matter in some instances. But... ? Where is our NPOV?

NPOV policy states here that " Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views" and "To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

Considering the current article, it treats the theory slightly above the website in the leading text and devotes two paragraphs + an image to the website and one to the theory.

In your example revision, the leading text gives much higher credence to the theory, and has 2 paragraphs + 1 image about the website, and about 4 paragraphs of theory + several lists and two images. If NPOV were to be situated even to treat the theory and website as equals, there would be bias in the article.

What we need to debate:

  1. Is the website more important than the theory?
  2. If so, should we purposely be less comprehensive on our coverage of the theory in order to give a proper weight to them?

The current version says yes to both. Your version says no to the first. Let the battle begin. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 16:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The website is, essentially, a collection of theory-related content. If we are to exclude the theory, then what are we left with? The URL, "http://www.timecube.com"? When we include the quotes, we are indeed focusing on the website, and not on mere obscurities related thereto.
The website is, essentially, a collection of theory-related content. I disagree with this statement. Although a good part of the website is, indeed, theory-related content, some of the more parodied aspects of the website are "long portions of large-font text in a variety of colors" and "limited coherence". If we exclude the theory, we are left with these traits.
When we include the quotes, we are indeed focusing on the website, and not on mere obscurities related thereto. This would be sound reasoning if indeed the website was "essentially a collection of theory-related content". However, as described above, it is not so much the proposal that time is cubic as is the incoherence and large fonts Gene Ray uses to get his point across that makes it notable. No one is against striking quotes completely, but including all the quotes still is something more appropriate for Wikiquotes. You have not yet presented any argument about this.
One cannot say that the website has received substantial attention, but the theory itself none. Agreed. None is a strong word. However...
The website is famous primarily because of the theory. While the website may be famous because of traits of the theory (incoherence), I believe it is not famous because of the content of the theory. This is an important distinction. If you believe that it is famous because of the content of the theory (i.e. that the theory is something novel, something important, something that has stimulated a lot of discussion), please say so. However, if the trait that the theory is incoherent has stimulated a lot of parodies, then this is a quality of the website.
I propose that it is therefore within reason to detail salient aspects of the theory. This is a reasonable proposal, and to some extent, I believe that it is already implemented inside the current Time Cube article (mostly within the leading section). A slight expansion may be in order, but not in the manner of adding large lists of quotes.
Overall Response: I feel that your statements somewhat equate the website to the theory (not so much the statement in the Adding Pictures section but in this section). My primary point is that yes, you do have things left over when you take the content of the theory away from the article. However, if I seem to have misunderstood your statements, please clarify, as we cannot conduct a meaningful discussion without understanding each others points first. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we split the article to TimeCube.com and Time Cube, the former discussing the web page (as an Internet fad propagating the "Time Cube") and the latter discussing the theory/hypothesis/dream/whatever of Time Cube? I'm not saying this is a good idea (although it would help in prioritizing), but if it's felt that the web page is important and the "theory" not, this might ease a deletion of the latter. I'd also like to mention that TimeCube.com isn't the only way people can know of the Time Cube: for example they might have watched his lectures (held at MIT and Georgia Tech), watched his short movie "Bucket of Gems", read his book "Code of the Pyramid" or come across a page such as Cubic Awareness Online. -- Woseph 13:40:21, 2005-08-28 (UTC) [not the anon above]
That proposed split is presupposing that both the theory and the Web site are separately notable and each deserving of an article of their own; that would be true if this were a widely-held and notable theory or belief system, which might attract a number of independent institutions, organizations, schools of thought, and Web sites within it, and hence justify multiple Wikipedia articles, as does Christianity or Anarchism. However, the Time Cube doesn't seem to be such; it's a belief system which seems to be held only by one person and promulgated largely via his Web site. It's exclusively notable as a phenomenon centering on the activities of this one individual (on and off the Web), so I think it justifies a single article covering all aspects as we have now. *Dan* 15:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
If Time Cube is "a belief system which seems to be held only by one person" (emphasize added), then we should remove as much as possible of the "theory", right? For example, Zombo.com only says that the pages states one "can do anything they want without any limitations at Zombo.com" (which isn't all the animation says!), and other than that focuses on the layout/function of the webpage. My point is that many seem to agree that TimeCube.com is a notable webpage worthy of an entry in Wikipedia (and for many this is chiefly because of the layout/incomprehensibility), but there seems to be somewhat of a controversy regarding if the same is true for the accompanying "theory". Hence, it might be difficult/impossible to create a "theory"-page which lives up to Wikipedia standards (as it is now, any VfD will probably survive due to the fame of the webpage itself). Consequently, I'm not presupposing that both are notable. -- Woseph 17:22:29, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
A minor sidenote: people generally don't refer to the website as TimeCube.com, just Time Cube, so a pagemove isn't up to order. However, keeping it as Time Cube creates confusion, because if Time Cube is a website, isn't Time Cube also a theory? So add that content (which is incorrect, most of the content isn't notable)! Some of the content is notable in that it contributes to the incoherence, or is a theme (like the superiority of number 4), but most of it isn't notable. Let's wait for the anon to reply. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't like using the .com (or other top-level domain) from a Web site address as part of the name of the site or the company/organization that produces it; that sort of foolishness was rampant in the so-called "dot-com boom" of around 1999-2000, and some "marketroids" seem wedded to it even now, but it erodes the useful distinction between names and addresses, and hence should be avoided. There are a few cases, like Amazon.com, where such usage is unavoidable in order to disambiguate from unrelated uses of the stem word, but in most cases the domain ending can be dispensed with; for instance, I don't like the fact that Epinions.com is a site title rather than just Epinions (so I might some day get bold and move it). *Dan* 17:53, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Time Cube" and go through the various links provided. The overwhelming majority of pages (in excess of 95%) are pure parody pages. Aside from Gene Ray's timecube.com and subsidiary pages (abovegod.com etc.) there are effectively no pages discussing the theory of time cube until you eventually get down to cubciao.tk which is our anon's page. Past that, you'll again find no discussion of the theory, merely discussion of the website and parodies thereof. There are a few random blog entries mentioning Gene Ray's appearances at MIT or Georgia Tech, but their "discussion of the theory" is extremely limited (mostly they just say "huh? that makes no sense!"). Now, for pages that discuss of parody the website, going through them will show the most often discussed and parodied points are: the page layout, style and background; the incomprehensibility and or random disjoint nature of the text; the unique style of prose (short sentences dropping common words like "the", "is", etc.); the accusatory style of the text (the repeated accusations that the reader is stupid, evil, both, etc.); the complete lack of significant justification for the (comprehensible) claims made. A few pages will go so far as to briefly touch on the actual theory itself, but normally just to make the usual "a cube has 6 sides and 8 corners not 4" type comments - no in depth discussion is ever entered into. The talk pages here on Wikipedia (Time Cube, Gene Ray, TTC etc.) probably amount to the greatest amount of detailed discussion of Time Cube theory on the internet. I'd say that all of that is sufficient evidence of the general lack of regard by the majority for the theory of Time Cube. Anon might believe it deeply, but one person does not make for notability. Finally there is the issue that the theory, as opposed to the website, falls under Original Research and hence doesn't belong here on Wikipedia (no significant media coverage, and certainly no peer reviewed journals). Let's stick to the website please. Cheradenine 19:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have several comments.
1. There is some overlap between the two proposed images, however, if the article is long enough, we might as well intersperse it with them both.
2. It may be a good idea to move the quotes to the Wikiquote page, and present in this article a link thereto. Discussion of the theory is still in order. Cheradenine claims there to have been near-zero discussion of the theory: not true, the theory's content has been discussed on blogs, message-boards, etc., albeit mostly at the basic level. I feel that a synopsis of the theory's content is in order.
3. Further to the above, try reading some Wikipedia articles that focus not on scientific websites, but on ones such as webcomics. We find lengthy plot descriptions, even when most discussion relating to these sites would concern merely their overall style and subject-matter. Also, as with Time Cube, these minutae would not have received significant media coverage. For consistency, similar detail should be allowed in this article. It should not be subjected to discrimination on the basis of its scientific, rather than creative, status.
4. An article-split would indeed be redundant, with the likely result being a deletion on the basis of said redundancy. It would provide no indication regarding consensus on these issues.
In general, I think your points are very reasonable. I agree with point 4 fully, and most of the other points I agree with too. With 1, let's wait and see, right now, the article isn't so big, but we might get that point eventually. With 2, you'll have to bring that up over at Wikiquotes and hope that a page with Time Cube quotes doesn't get VfD'ed (if there are a few very notable quotes on the site, it'll likely pass though). I feel that a synopsis of the theory's content is in order.. Agreed. We should at least devote a paragraph to a general idea of what Gene Ray's trying to say. It's not impossible to interpret (remember, impossible is a strong word), but we shouldn't delve into the technical details. A good example is the "ultimateness" of a certain shape, which is parodied a lot. If there is consensus with devoting a paragraph to the content of Time Cube, I propose we unprotect the page. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I think the essence of the "theory" is already covered in the article. "Some of the main assertions of this hypothesis are that time is cubic, that there are four simultaneous 24 hour days in one rotation of the Earth and that Gene Ray is wiser than all gods and scientists." pretty much covers it - in fact I think "Time is cubic and there are four simultaneous 24 hour days in a single rotation of the earth" covers it. Is there a whole lot more major points that can be readily extracted from Gene Ray's page? Maybe "Four is important, and everything is opposites" but that's, at most, another sentence. There really isn't any coherent cohesive "theory" expressed on Gene Ray's page, certainly nothing you could commit a paragraph to. Our anon guest has pages devoted to his theory of Time Cube and will, I'm sure, talk at length about it. This article is about Gene Ray's Time Cube though, not anon's CubicAO site. If anon would like to start an article for CubicAO I wouldn't have a problem with him discussing his theory there.
I would also still like to know how the "theory" counts as something other than original research. It is claiming to be a (semi) scientific theory, and requires peer reviewed journal articles or significant press coverage to count as anything other than original research. It certainly has never been published in a peer reviewed journal, and the best coverage even anon can come up with is a minor piece (mostly about Gene Ray, not the theory) in a small town Florida newspaper and a couple of student newspaper articles about talks Gene Ray has given at those universities. That is not significant media coverage - I've seen more media coverage for The Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of Global Warming (it is caused, apparently, by a lack of pirates). That gets (entirely reasonably) a short sentence explaining vaguely what is claimed as a means of documenting the website which is (apparently) notable, but certainly no "discussion of the theory". We seem to have the same thing here with Time Cube - a notable website with an unsubstantiated, original research theory where the website is notable, but the theory is not. We have a brief sentence explaining basically what the website is trying to claim (simply to document the website), and I think attempts to discuss and expound the theory amount to inserting original research into Wikipedia. Cheradenine 14:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to summarize the "theory" in just one or two sentences. For example, the central statement "there are 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single Earth rotation" (or one of it's equivalents) in itself is amigious and difficult to understand, but the figure [2] makes much clearer. There are also statements on the webpage which are very easy to understand, for example: (i) Time Cube has the answer for the nuclear waste problem; (ii) Time Cube is a theory of everything, it's even listed on our article on the subject; (iii) That human metamorphosis has four corners (states) and that only the baby is born.
I also think it's a good idea to highlight were Time Cube is incompatible with other popular beliefs, examples include -1*-1=-1 and the nonexistance of a god.
Regarding quotes, there are other Wikipedia articles, such as Xenu, containing large amounts of inline quotes. It's not the list of quotes we had here, but it does show that it's possible to incorporate the quotes in a Wikipedia article. Concerning original research, merely restating what Gene Ray himself says is not original research, even though Gene Ray's work on the Time Cube "theory" obviously is.
Finally, in case someone missed it: Bei Dawei wrote an article "Proving Human Stupidity": Time Cube, Gnosis and the Challenge of Radical Cosmology, in (I believe) Hsuan Chuang Humanities Journal. The quality of the article is at best preprint in my opinion. It's available at [3], if you can't reach the site try using an Asian proxy (I can't reach it directly).
-- Woseph 22:15:52, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
I agree. The aspects you cite are worthy of inclusion. In fact, most of them were indeed in the article prior to the slash-and-burn attack.
The Asian article to which you linked is an example of Cubic media coverage. I feel, also, that the following quote corroborates another of my points:
"...the internet has hosted a surprisingly broad range of critique--both positive and negative--of Ray's theories, as the extracts cited in this article may reveal. That the Time Cube should have its hearing in a popular rather than elitist context is quite appropriate given the anti-authoritarian nature of Ray's critique."
In fact, most of them were indeed in the article prior to the slash-and-burn attack. Remember, the only things we removed were pictures and lists, and the lists were agreed to be overall inappropriate for Wikipedia. It's not a simple matter of reinstating prior content: we have to rewrite them so that not only are they representative, they also have to not read like lists (not the same as extensive inline quotes.
Furthermore, as an English reader, I seriously believe that the writer of this paper has misinterpreted his sources. What he calls "wide and varying" criticism is actually him not getting the sarcasm in so many of the sites he cited. In fact, he does not seem to get any of the sites he cited. [4] seems to be a review of the Time Cube role playing game but actually is an essay deriding Time Cube, the author's premise about Time Cube being "Fuck if I know." While I believe that the author of this paper truly wanted to keep an open mind about the Time Cube theory, he misinterpreted most of his sources that would have allowed him to make an educated decision.
Finally, a paper is not necessarily peer reviewed. The paper here is from a university's library, not a peer-reviewed magazine (in fact, getting your hands on those sorts of documents costs a lot of money!) This could have been an assignment for one of their students.
The aspects you cite are worthy of inclusion. I have no problem compromising and letting those aspects in, provided we end these long revert war. Cheradanine appears to have stronger feelings about how including these aspects will equate to original research, but think: a paragraph is not unreasonable! That is my stance. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 16:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I was referring to this old version, prior to the slash-and-burn crusade. The article in question is an example of Time Cube media coverage. Aspects of Time Cube theory are often discussed in derisive or parodying sites, e.g. 1.
I retract my last statement about slash and burn then. I still don't agree with you calling it "slash and burn", but I won't argue with about it.
Aspects of Time Cube theory are often discussed in derisive or parodying sites and we agree! The thing is, we disagree to the extent these things are discusses and which aspects merit inclusion.
The article in question is an example of Time Cube media coverage It depends on your view of media coverage. Does a fairly inaccurate paper written by a Chinese person from a fairly non-notable university (see HCU) count as media coverage? Just because it looks nice and is pdf form doesn't mean it's notable at all. I'm not saying that there is no media coverage, but the media coverage out there that is notable is mostly derisive. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 13:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I removed

Gene Ray says that he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia by a psychiatrist whom he believes to be evil.

which was added by Brentt. Where did he say this? TimeCube.com states that

My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that a psychiatrist examining my behavior, eccentric by his academic single corner knowledge, knows no course other than to judge me schizoprenic.

which obviously doesn't imply the first claim. Secondly, why not keep detailed comments about his health on Gene Ray, where there already is a correct description of the quote from the webpage under Ray's Mental Health. -- Woseph 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Crackpot, doctor

Regarding the link to the crackpot index: AFAIK both the crackpot index and the Time Cube website were started in 1998. Why are we convinced that Gene Ray/Time Cube wasn't used as a definining property when the index was created? Surely such an index requires a group of people which, a priori, are to be considered "crackpots". Applying the index to this group generally makes little or no sense.

Regarding the use of "Dr.": The Wikipedia article on doctor states that it's usage varies a lot ("It is also true, however, that the usage of doctor as a title also varies by country and culture."). What are the formal requirements for using "Dr." on Wikipedia? Ph.D. from an Ivy League university? (I'm kidding, but you get the point.)

-- Woseph 11:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the formal requirements, a self-proclaimed "doctor" of, say, bullshitology or some other such academic discipline would not fit them. You get the point. Kosebamse 14:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying it is because the title is self-proclaimed, or because you consider Time Cube to be "bullshitology or some other such academic discipline", or what? If the latter, please elaborate what you consider to be "bullshitology". -- Woseph 15:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Well there is probalbly no clear cut definition of the title "Doctor", but I can see why people who have actually earned the title "Dr" from an "evil academian" institution would like to protect it . What would be the point of having a title if everyone can "bestow it upon them selves". And what is the point of it really, why does he award him self an academian title in the first place?. It is a fun fact however and should be mentioned but i dont think its fair to fraise it in a way that sounds like he has an respected tiltle as "dr" implies...King Mob 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Self-proclaimed doctor of whatever in the world. Sapienti sat. Kosebamse 18:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Deny him the title "Dr" if you so wish, Kosebamse; but I must take issue with you on your inclusion of the "Crackpot Index" link. Apparently you hold this "index" in high esteem. Now, I presume that if we take any theory in the form its creator presents it in, and, applying the "Crackpot Index" to said theory, find that it attracts a high crackpot score, the conclusion, in your view, would be to deem the theory false.
Some of its 37 points would be clear indicators of falsity. For example:
  • 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
  • 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
  • 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
  • 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
One might be concerned at the fact that Prof. Baez chooses to award points to a theory's individual statements, rather than judging it as a whole; however, for theories that are a collection of smaller, largely inter-independent hypotheses, a variant numerical value would facilitate descriptions such as "mostly true", "partially false", etc. There could be use in that.
However, some of the index's points traverse slightly more nebulous ground. These ones include:
  • 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
  • 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
  • 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
These indicate if that one misspells a name, or uses one of the quoted phrases, one actually renders the theory less true. So for instance, if Einstein had misspelled something in one of his papers, that would instantly create situations throughout the universe in which the laws of relativity would not hold. Maybe the butterfly-effect is responsible for this; Baez probably has equations showing why the above phrases are more likely than others to alter the physical laws of the universe. Similar to how particular species of butterflies are more likely than others to cause hurricanes.
There is also the following:
  • 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
It appears that the citation of a measurement of time could actuate a self-reflexive temporal circumvention by which the spacetime fabric is ruptured, thereby rendering the theory false. Interesting—I'd like to see Baez's quantum-science justifications for that one.
But the following points broach rather an objectionable area:
  • 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
  • 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
  • 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
  • 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
  • 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
So, anyone with an important revolutionary theory isn't allowed to state their conclusion that it is indeed revolutionary? They have to keep quiet about it, such that it might never receive a second glance? They can't protest against possible conservative opposition that might exist against their theory? They can't take the reasonable measure of using monetary incentives to attract the theory its deserved attention? All of these would serve to grant a theory a minimum chance of recognition.
What's going on with that? Why doesn't John Baez want innovative theories to be recognised? Shouldn't they be, if we are to approach scientific matters with an attitude of rational free-thought? Or has this self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy chosen to believe that the modern scientific establishment is completely infallible, such that situations like Galileo's could never occur?
Baez has actually taken into account potential indignation at his webpage's defensive slant:
  • 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
Oh no! If I point out the professor's bias, he'll just mark me down by 20 points. Bummer.
Now, Woseph has raised doubts regarding the crackpot index. He's with me on this: the link lacks merit, and does not belong on the page.
But let me ask you, Kosebamse: do you really advocate this logic, shown above? Would you use it to prove Time Cube "bullshit"? Is the crackpot index exemplary of the reasoning that you depend on to uphold your Academian beliefs?
There is nothing "logical" about the index. It is simply meant as a facetious (read "funny") jab at all the crackpots out there who believe in their ideas by putting together some of the most common "claims" or "traits" of their proposals. It is by no means definitive. The longwinded logical break down was unnecessary. The question is whther or not the humor is overly relevant to Time Cube. I veering towards no. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It's semi-humorous rather than entirely humorous, and it gives a good overview of what characterises a typical crackpot theory. As Timecubism is the widely viewed (to say the least) as total crackpottery, I consider it useful to read a high-profile physicist's views about the matter. If the usefulness of that link needed any more proof, 211.28's defensive reaction speaks volumes. And by the way, 211.28, would you please, in a departure from your long-standing habit, start signing your comments, as it is against Wikiquette to edit talk pages without signing. Kosebamse 15:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I know, Ambush Commander; it's not scientific, it's just a joke. That's what I've been saying, but Kosebamse has had other ideas. Now if the usefulness of my logical deconstruction needed any more proof, volumes are spoken by Kosebamse's defensive (and completely evasive) response. I'd say that the areas of the Crackpot Index that are non-humourous and useful are more or less limited to the four points I listed as "clear indicators of falsity".
As much as I would like to sign my comments, I fear that Prof. Baez may slap me with 20 crackpot-points for doing so. No can do, I'm afraid.
I notice, Ambush Commander, that you view the crackpot index link as irrelevant; I will construe this to support my removal of it from the article.
WRT evasiveness, policy matters are not to be joked about. Not signing comments is simply rude, because it makes it more difficult for others to follow a discussion. The usefulness of your logical deconstruction should perhaps be viewed in light of the fact that you subscribe to a set of ideas whose mathematical (and inherently, logical) concept can be reduced to outright nonsense (see Talk:Time_Cube/Archive#Mathematics?. Kosebamse 16:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
While conduct is important, I'm going to disregard that last comment because it doesn't offer any new arguments and is a subtle ad hominem... although we have to take into account this is an anon we're dealing with... you should get an account.
211.28.*.* argues that the Crackpot index is misrepresentative and misleading: it's not so great after all. However, one should note that while the crackpot index was not composed with serious intention in mind, it nevertheless has often been cited in discussions of whether a claim or an individual is cranky, particularly in physics. I argue that the crackpot index is notable, it has been used, it is facetious, and it is pointless to try to discredit it.
If we were to remove the link, I would do it on the sole basis that it is not overly relevant to Time Cube. Kosebamse argues that since Time Cube is usually viewed as a crackpot theory, a respected physicists view on crackpottery is relevant. Note that the view on Time Cube can only be inferred, the physicist only directly is referring to "crackpots" in general. I would support this link on the Crackpot page (indeed, it is already there).
The more I think about it, the less enthusiastic I am about its inclusion. We don't have any basis that the index was directly created based on Time Cubism. Are we obligated to have a link on the page Intelligent Design to an external site about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? They have a link to the page, but not to an external site, and that's a major distinction. A link to Crank (person) would definitely be in order if we ever added a see also section. But a link to an external site about the Crackpot Index (association is Time Cube -> Crackpot -> Crackpot Index) is ludicrous. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 20:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that 211.28.*.* is Gene Ray, aka TimeCubeGuy, and policy on his edits is "shoot on sight". --Zetawoof 01:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that I am not Gene Ray, contrary to your baseless assertion. Sounds like you're just trying to discredit me. I agree with Ambush Commander that Kosebamse is also engaging in an "ad hominem" attack: he judges my argument not on its own merits, but on a reputation he assigns to me.
This reputation itself has no objective basis, but is merely Kosebamse's opinion: my arguments were not "nonsense", it was just that they contradicted his beliefs. I suppose that round-earth would similarly be considered "nonsense" by a flat-earther whose erroneous idea of sense it would contradict.
WRT link to the Wikipedia crackpot article, notice that the Time Cube article contains a link to Crank, which, in turn, contains an external link to the "Crackpot Index". So if readers want to learn more about the crank/crackpot side of things, they can turn to those articles rather than relying on this one.
Now I am hardly going to be signing my comments when Kosebamse makes it clear that he's prejudging my arguments on his impression of me as a person. To sign my comments would be to affirm his prejudice.
To sign comments would a step towards compliance with Wikipedia policies, nothing more. WRT 211.28's reputation it is not irrelevant to know that 211.28 is a highly problematic user who has repeatedly engaged in edit wars, refuses to follow policy, stirs conflict wherever he edits, and the ArbCom has vowed to shoot his edits on sight (see top of this page). Kosebamse 04:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm actually rather more concerned with the content of articles than with the minutae of wikiquette.
Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. If you are concerned with article content, you can exercise said privilege, and if you wish to do so, you have to respect the rules of the community. If these rules are not agreeable to you, you can just go away, or try to build consensus to get them changed. If you choose to violate our rules in an attempt to push your point of view, as you have persistently done, the Wikipedia community will react accordingly, as you have experienced.Kosebamse 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
What, so not signing my comments is an attempt to further acceptance of Time Cube, is it? The community, I have found, holds an anti-Cubic prejudice. Nothing particularly worthy of respect.
Reading my earlier comment again, I realise that it's indeed a rather ad hominem argumentation and I agree that that kind of argumentation is not useful. However, I was not aware that perhaps not all of you are aware who 211.28 (AKA Time Cube Guy) is. I have been involved with 211.28-related matters ever since he started his activities on Wikipedia, and let me assure you that he is a great challenge to everybody's patience, to say the very least. The amount of archives of this talk pages is telling. You have been warned.
Regarding his edits, he is IMO free to spend his time on talk pages, but any attempts to introduce his propagandistic views into articles are shootable on sight, as per ArbCom opinion on top of this page.Kosebamse 06:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Jews are shootable on sight too, I'd imagine. But I'd be a vandal and a crackpot to use the word "unreasonable" in connection with Wikipedia policies (either those on the policy pages, or those made up "on sight").
The Wikipedia community and several individual users have already demonstrated an enormous amount of patience with your POV pushing and violation of policies. You are hardly in a position to criticise our do's and don'ts. Kosebamse 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes I am, because I have experienced unreasonable treatment. I am thus in a prime position to tender criticism. And I myself have demonstrated great patience with Cubeless fools.
Timecubeguy, most of the world does not believe in cubic principles and views those who believe in it as, quite frankly, "stupid." To judge you solely on your views would be discrimination, but we do reserve the right to more closely watch and question your edits on account of your character. At the end of the day, the truth is truth and NPOV is NPOV and it doesn't matter who the edit came from, but until you build more credibility, your edits will be subject to far more scrutiny then say (and I know this is a ludicrous comparison), the edits of Jimmy Wales. Using the talk page as a soapbox to advocate your own views (as you did in your reply with Dawei's comment) doesn't help either. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Believers

The article currently states

... there are some who claim to understand and follow Ray's views (although these "believers" are frequently accused of being Ray himself, posing as someone else). The specific number of actual "believers" is unknown, but available evidence does not rule out this number being zero.

This claims, AFAICT

  1. There exists a group consisting of strictly more than one person, or at least (online) identity, who claim to understand and follow Ray's views
  2. The group above is frequently accused to consist solely of Ray
  3. Available evidence does not rule out the number of actual "believers" (where "believers" appears to refer to the group in claim 1)

I agree with claim 1: take a look at the recordings of Ray's lectures, the CubicAO website/forums, and the emails printed in "Code of the Pyramid".

However, I'm not so sure regarding claim 2. Are there any references (outside Wikipedia) where credible claims of this nature are made?

Regarding claim 3, doesn't everyone agree that Gene Ray himself really believes in the theory (and his own views)? If so, this bounds from below the number of actual "believers" -- whatever reasonable definition of this we choose -- by one.

I suppose actual refers to the possibility that some who claim to be believers aren't sincere and just claim it for some other reason (for fun?). I suggest that we instead first state that the number of believers/followers is unknown, and then if we can back it up that the sincerity of the believers, which it is reasonable to question (I'm not claiming it is, but if we can back it up), is unknown. (If it's not reasonable from a NPOV to question the sincerity we shouldn't mention it: notice that Christianity doesn't read "... an estimated 2.1 billion adherents, or about one-third of the total world population, but available evidence does not rule out the number of actual believers to be zero.")

-- Woseph 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi Woseph. You make some good points. Perhaps "adherents" would be a better word than "believers"; would Ray count as an adherent? As regards claim 2, there must be a bazillion instances on usenet of various (shall we say, single-issue) people being accused of being a sockpuppet. I've done it myself.

And the third point you make about "actual" just shows how hard it is to be NPOV. I would say that the issue is that noone (apart from Ray) has ever made any statement of any kind that in any way supports cubic theory (AFAIK). In the case of Christianity, in contrast, there are people who (eg) appear on TV supporting it.

Good luck with rephrasing it!

best wishes

Robinh 07:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I have made pro-Cubic statements, Robinh; also, reread Woseph's post above to find that he states, "I agree with claim 1", where claim 1 is that there are multiple Time Cube adherents. I myself am a Cube-adherent other than Dr Ray, and I have had contact with several others professing Cubic adherence. I will therefore be rectifying the article's statements accordingly—I will also be removing from the article any instances of claim 2, so as to reflect my agreement with the doubts expressed by Woseph.

Following up on Merge Suggestion

Whether Gene Ray should be merged into the Time Cube article (with a redirect) seems to have gotten lost somewhere. The idea of trying to collect all the time cube related links (parodies, etc.) under more than one article seems to obviate the need to pull this information together. Speaking about Gene's life separately from the Time Cube is of limited value to most readers, and I doubt that he would disagree given his rather strong wording of the all-encompassing nature of the theory. Metaeducation 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, you should not merge the articles merely for the purpose of reducing your link-management effort. New links are added infrequently; thus, if you normalise the two articles, the resultant intersimilarity will not be overturned too quickly.
I have found your rewrite to be of good quality. I'd be willing to make some contributions myself, but the pedants are determined to stop me.

Bei Dawei says Hi

I'm thrilled you guys have gotten ahold of my little essay. I have to say I was feeling a bit cynical about the whole academic thing when I wrote it. (My university wants me to write articles, but doesn't much care what they're about.) The poster who accuses me of not perceiving irony should realize that I was smiling the whole time I wrote it. Which is worth something, I guess.

Yes, it is technically "peer-reviewed", but not necessarily by experts on that subject (whatever this one would be, I don't know--popular culture I guess). Also, the revised versions don't get re-reviewed. I do recall one reviewer saying that it should be set apart somehow from the other articles in the journal, to show that it was done a bit tongue-in-cheek, but that suggestion wasn't followed.

The thing about Hipparchus is, his discovery of the precession of the equinoxes caused a major religious upheaval in the Greco-Roman world. Gene Ray kind of reminds me of that (there's even an ancient parallel for the Three Equators), except of course that it's mainly him whose mind is being boggled, so to speak.

Oh yes, I do think Time Cube has generated a surprising amount of critique. Not from scientists, of course (at least not in their capacity as scientists), but mainly from people like me who are fascinated by Dr. Ray's inimitable style and worldview. (Doesn't it surprise anyone else that so many people--laughing or not--would be paying attention to this?)

On what to do with the Wikipedia article, my inclination would be to keep "Time Cube" (both theory and website) and "Gene Ray" entries separate, and to make this division a bit more efficient. But, I don't have a strong opinion about it.

God I wish I could see that movie ("Above God.") Probably won't come to the film festivals here, though. Alas!

--Bei Dawei

Hi Bei Dawei. The reason Time Cube gets so much publicity is because it's true and because Dr Ray is the wisest human ever. If you would like to see video of him in action, the Time Cube DVD may serve well. Also, see Cubic Awareness Online for further Cube-explanation. You must seek Time Cube.
The poster who accuses me of not perceiving irony should realize that I was smiling the whole time I wrote it. Which is worth something, I guess. Well, this is certainly interesting. You don't get the author of a cited work swinging by too often (and yes, the anon posted from a proxy associated with the university, so I believe this is Dawei). I retract that accusal: didn't get the subtle irony of the work (apparently, neither did TimeCubeGuy). But we're here to talk about the Wikipedia article, so you can sorta ignore the above comment (we're not here to talk about Time Cube).
I'm not exactly sure who proposed the merge, but It seems User:Metaeducation has been doing some major rewrites of the article recently. He hasn't stepped on anyone's toes yet, so we'll have to see where this turns out. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube forum

For posterity the link is here.

The headings of talk pages are for links to archived conversation, and related archival pages scattered throughout Wikipedia pertaining to the article (aka former AfDs, requests for Peer Review). It is hard to justify the inclusion of a link that 1) is external and 2) does not offer meaningful insight into the article (not to be confused with the topic). — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been added back again

User:Sam Spade has in this edit had added back the disputed bullet list content that had been the subject of a vicious content war earlier. Personally, I don't really care anymore, after all of MetaEducation's edits, it would be nice to see Gene Ray redirecting to Time Cube. Sam Spade is an established, if not slightly controversial, contributor to Wikipedia, so I shall assume good faith. It would be appreciated, however, if he gave his reasons for the readdition of this disputed content. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My reasons are simple. I read this article months ago and learned what Gene ray was talking about. Yesterday I brought up this page in front of 2 non-wikipedians intending to show them what gene ray was talking about. I was shocked and embaressed to find the content in question had been removed. I immediately scoured the history, and found the information I had been expecting, and reinserted it. I see no reason for it having been removed, but I am willing to discuss its inclusion. As an aside, I think Gene Ray redirecting here might be ok. Sam Spade 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This isn't the place to analyze and interpret the philosophy, so if there is going to be an extensive section providing details of the theory...it is more appropriate to use some categorized quotes like this. The way Time Cube is presented on the Gene Ray article seems like a tarpit, and I think it's best to move away from that and keep this article a little more to-the-point...as I think the opinion of both Gene's supporters and detractors is that the material speaks, largely, for itself. Metaeducation 04:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon Deletions

The following snippets were deleted from the article:

Ray and his Time Cube theory are also the subject of the documentary "Above God" by Memphis director Brett Hanover. While Gene will not allow a commercial release, the film has won several awards at southern film festivals.[5]

and

By anon User:24.92.139.189. Similar changes happened on Gene Ray. It appears that the anon sought to remove information about this documentary, but its notability was dubious from the start, so I'm not reverting the edits yet. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


-Explaination: Gene asked for this information to be removed at threat of legal action.

Well, the blog doesn't seem to exist anymore, so that's that, I guess. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
There was a dispute over the contents of the movie between the directer and Gene Ray. So the director in the end gave up on the release. So i guess he went all the way and took the blog down as well King Mob 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_12&oldid=141539540"