User talk:ChristopherTheodore

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


Hello, ChristopherTheodore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


You have not very many edits. Whilst that doesn't stop you plunging into a long and bitter argument, it might give you pause for thought. Wiki is not as simple as you might think. Perhaps rather than waiting for 24 hours it might be better to come back to this issue in a month, when you've got more experience. Is the issue in any sense urgent? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, well, there you go. You wouldn't listen to words or advice, and now you're blocked. At this point you have two choices in your wiki-career: listen to the block, re-consider the words, and back off. Or, you can get really really annoyed with everyone, come back off the block edit warring, and get blocked again (actually, you have a third choice which is even worse: to go socking instead). Its up to you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of other choices that you didn't bother to present. Like researching the cites needed to support my additions. And do what I actually came here to do, which is to develop this article into something more then a "Start-Class" article. You've had 10 years (since 2003), William. You and the active editors are obviously at a loss on how to do this. I am quite certain I can help.

Are you actually unaware that while I don't believe my initial point was ever comprehended, that I yielded on the "Universe" point after a healthy debate? Then, when I demonstrated that I do comprehend the OR policy, and began to support any additions with cites, and to correct any errors in my edits as they were brought to my attention, that I was accused of edit waring? When in fact, due to the prejudiced created by my debate of a point on OR, all my work is now suspect of being OR.

Further, there are 2 main schools of thought on the concept and theories of life in the "state of nature before the establishment of governments" Mr. Connolley:

  1. That man is an animal, and that life in the state of nature was animistic.
  2. That man is divine in origin, and that life in the state of nature was a Utopia, starting with a Golden Age.

Social Darwinists' works finds many of it's roots in Thomas Hobbes's portrayal of the state of nature. As do some of the subsequent philosophers' works based on Hobbes's theories. And this article is dominated by this first school of thought. The article, as it was when I first started editing and remains, is biased.

I doubt you are unaware (but I'll give you a benefit of the doubt), there is an organized effort by the subscribers to Darwin's theory, to eradicate any opposing beliefs. Both schools of thought on the topic of "life in the state of nature before civilization" will be presented, and then the reader can make up their mind.

This is my motive Mr. Connolley. What's yours?

Thanks for the advice, but I'll go with my other options. I look forward to working with all of you on this article. :-D

I'll work on be a little less heated in the future, but the debates will provoke an improvement in this article like they already have. Tho, I do apologize for having rattled your cages so hard. Do forgive that before the time the ban ends. Christopher Theodore (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Once more, it needs to be emphasised that any material added to our article relating to other "schools of thought" on the subject matter of the State of nature article will have to be sourced to directly relevant material - material which directly addresses the specific topic of the article - a philosophical concept regarding humanity prior to the emergence of 'society'. And likewise, any discussions and debates on the article talk page will have to have a direct bearing on the article - which likewise means that directly relevant sourcing will be required. That you consider the article biased because it discusses one theory rather than another is not in of itself evidence of bias, any more than our article on Christianity could be argued to be biased because it doesn't discuss say atheist or Judaic viewpoints on the divinity of Christ. 'Bias' would involve favouring one viewpoint regarding the subject matter itself - the philosophical concept - over another. And I can see little evidence that the article does this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the presentation of information from the one school of thought that is the issue, it's the absence of information from the other. Your juxtaposition of this article with Christianity is improper - It is more akin to the articles on Religion, Philosophy, Politics. Now, if you wanted to liken Hobbes POV to Monarchy, and Aquinas' to Republics, that would be proper... and both belong in a article about Politics. Christopher Theodore (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt very much that there are only two schools of thought regarding the matter - in fact I'm sure that there are more (certainly within the contemporary social sciences, almost nobody would consider say Hobbes or Rousseau's perspectives as reflecting any past 'reality' - though arguably the debate was always more about a 'philosophical' past than a perceived 'real' one). In any case, as I have already stated, what is needed is sources of direct relevance to the article topic. Without those, there is nothing to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "2 schools of thought", I said "2 MAIN schools of thought." And I gave an example that is common knowledge of what those are. I have cites to support the information. They will be added with my work. Tho, do flag anything you have an issue with and give me an opportunity to support it before deleting my work in the future. Someone else had over a year to provide a citation.

Further, I would like to point out that the Law of Nations didn't align with Hobbes' views either (which is that the ".. state of nature disappeared ..).

"§ 4. In what light nations or states are to be considered. Nations being composed of men naturally free and independent, and who, before the establishment of civil societies, lived together in the state of nature, — Nations, or sovereign states, are to be considered as so many free persons living together in the state of nature."

While compiled by Vattel, it was much more then a philosophical work, and is among the foundational elements of modern international law - which is more like guide lines just like the Law of Nations was in it's time. It is still quoted today on occasion as an authority on the principles of international law. I would like you to review my addition in the second paragraph of the lead that had been reverted that stated that both of the older theories existed at the same time. Granted, I did remove the word "modern" after the error was pointed out to me, (and is why I was banned for "edit warring" - without even the curtsy of a warning that someone else got.) Christopher Theodore (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

On the whole, when a contributor is aware that edits may be contentious, it is better to propose them on the article talk page first, rather than add them only to have them deleted - it encourages compromise, and helps cool tempers. With regard to Vattel and the Law of Nations, I'm not entirely sure that our article isn't already straying a little off-topic with regard to such matters. I'll have to think about this though, and maybe get some input from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I did raise that issue regarding that second paragraph before I made that addition, but since it was restored, I assumed it had already been considered... and needed to additionally illustrate that point. Bah.. anyways... that paragraphs inclusion or exclusion is not a major issue from my POV.. perhaps a sub-section on the major effects of state of nature theories on social contracts and political thought (or something like that) would improve the article as well and provide a good cross link in both articles. That paragraph would be right at home there.Christopher Theodore (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you prudence regarding the Law of Nations, the bulk of that work is irrelevant to the topic at hand. None the less, there is a small portion of it that is. Christopher Theodore (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

State of nature[edit]

The topic is not in dispute. You are the only editor who is advocating changing the topic of the article. All other editors who have contributed to the (multiple) discussions support the current topic. Please stop your disruptive editing of the article. Pburka (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't changed the article since the debate started (other then to flag it - which I don't agree was ever resolved - and I object to the flags removal).
This seems like an attempt to set the stage for some kind of wiki-politic gambit in support of this threat AndyTheGrump made "I am going to raise his behaviour at WP:ANI, and ask that he be blocked on the grounds of disruptive editing and/or competence. I see no reason whatsoever why we should be obliged to waste any further time explaining elementary policy (and just plain common sense) to a 'contributor' who seems either unwilling to comply with policy, or incapable of understanding said policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)"
I feel harassed and bullied. I also don't think my points were honestly comprehended. I also don't think the issue I raised regarding the OR policy or with the current lead were ever honestly addressed. There was nothing I found in the policy that prohibited relying upon definitions as sources, only that other kinds of sources are more desirable and no source information contradicted the statement.
Further, in light of William pointing out that I am new to wikipedia above, and the condescending tone of responses to my debate which never addressed the issues I raised, I don't believe I am seen as a peer, but as a "newb" or an inferior.
I may not have edited many articles, but consider that it's due to the fact that I have observed a lot of behavior from editors over the 3 years I have been a member...
This will be my last statement regarding the dispute. It is true that "state of nature" could be interpreted to mean "the current state of the universe". Nobody is disputing that this is a linguistically correct interpretation of those words. Let's consider a different example: capital flight. This is a topic in the field of economics. However, someone approaching the topic with no knowledge whatsoever, such as your hypothetical collage student, could conclude that it means airline flights to a capital city. This is a legitimate interpretation of those words, but it would be ludicrous to include information about Reagan National Airport in the capital flight article. The state of nature article is about the concept in the field of philosophy. Political philosophers do not use the term to mean the physical state of the universe; they use it to mean the hypothetical social structures which existed before the emergence of governments. Your attempt to expand the scope of the topic, without showing any evidence that published philosophers recognized that expanded scope, is unambiguously original research. Pburka (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Rights, natural rights, etc.[edit]

I've rolled back a number of your edits to the lead sections in Rights, Private rights, Civil and political rights and Natural and legal rights. These seem to be along the same lines as your edits to State of nature: an unnecessary and confusing refactoring of the definition of the term in question based on some private interpretation of the terms. Normally that's not a case to use rollback but there is an ongoing discussion regarding your edits at State of Nature on AN/I and repeating that strategy on other pages will likely waste more of everyone's time. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't think the source of the rights is key to the topics?

State of nature[edit]

It appears that you're just trying to make a WP:POINT of some kind now. You've successfully alienated all of the other editors involved in the discussion, so it's no surprise that your edits aren't being given much consideration. I strongly advise you to take a break, read and understand the policies on original research, and try editing some articles which you don't have such a strong emotional attachment to. Pburka (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, just trying to make this "start-class" article improve... thanks for the help.

The main difference between a "Start class" article and a "C class" article, according to the relevant quality scale, is the presence of sufficient references. The best, and most productive way, to improve this article would be to edit its current content to ensure that it's well referenced and that any unreferencable statements are removed. I see that you've begun this by removing some unreferenced claims. Adding new material which is not directly supported by secondary sources, would serve to decrease the quality of the article further. Try to minimize uses of primary sources like Hobbes's own work, for example, and be careful to avoid WP:synthesis. Pburka (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for one week[edit]

I've blocked you for one week for edit warring on State of Nature as well as running discussion in circles over content which has been shown repeatedly by multiple editors to violate WP:OR, among others.

The good will of your fellow editors is a finite resource. Discussions like the one on state of nature (and the related boards) which seem to deliberately or unavoidably waste time taxes that good will. Further, you persisted in editing the articles while the discussion was ongoing and (at any time) was resoundlingly not in favor of your proposed changes. I am not interested in edit warring and I am not interested in wasting time. You may have this block reviewed by another administrator or you may convince me that you're not going to waste my time and the time of your fellow editors. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First Issue: I had ceased trying to sustain the issue regarding my desire to have the lead include both the physical sense of the term in addition to the philosophical sense of it and have not restored it. That said, I persist that the issue I was raising was NEVER actually understood. While I yielded on getting my way, I am not about to change my mind.

Second Issue: I had provided cites in support of other additions I had made (but my edits were still being deleted - not even flagged and discussed... just deleted.) I can quote the Law of Nations in a law suit in support of a point, but I can't quote it on Wikipedia? (FYI, you may not be aware, but I CAN NOT currently quote Wikipedia in a law suit, tho I can quote Britannica.) Am I really the one that was edit warring? I thought I had corrected the issue. Now I am banned for correcting it and republishing the corrected version?

Third Issue: I found a [citation needed] that was over a year old. But my edits are just deleted??? If you can't see the hypocrisy and bias, then perhaps this should be "reviewed by another administrator." And I suppose I am guilty of a WP:POINT, does that make the point less valid? Why were none of these flags ever used even once for things people had an issue with (I just found them btw - thanks for teaching me how to use them, let my fellow editors know how grateful I am :-P):

In Closing:

While my debate of an issue might have been too intense, I am obviously willing to discuss them, and also willing to yield if I can't have something exactly the way I want it. Even if I don't think I got a "fair hearing" - and that's fair as in just, I suppose I got a "fair hearing" (in the sense of a in carnival.)

You say "The good will of your fellow editors is a finite resource.," True, I agree. I looked at the fact that over the life of the article (10 years now), almost 400 people have contributed or attempted to contribute, but out of all those people only 15 remain active... and this article is still only a "Start Class." Is this not indicative that it may, in fact, be a deeper issue with my fellow editors?

Seems the true custom of wiki is for a small group to drive away the other 300+ people so they can keep an article a half-assed work.

BTW, the "History" of a CONCEPT always precedes the existence of a TERM. Guess the part of the article examining the evolution of the concept wasn't liked either. I figured that line of development would boost the rating of the article... but hey, I'm just a newb, what could I possible know...