User talk:Ramos1990

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


You could protect this page, this user wants to place Germany among the most atheist nations and the sources provided say less than 35%. Thank you.-- (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Hi. I tried posting for protection for this page, but it was declined for the time being. Please leave edit summaries with all your edits so that editors can see explanations for each of your edits. If you do not, you are risking sanctions by never leaving an edit summary. Protect your reputation here on wikipedia. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1:, sounds good. Thanks for doing all that work! It looks like it was an easy case and all is taken care of. I will add a comment there soon.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Keep on fighting against those trying to revise history to suit their own views. Eliko007 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cheers. THEPROMENADER   22:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for your kind mention[1]. I'm not always the most articulate (in getting points across), but I guess I'm making some progress. Cheers. TP   06:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey User:ThePromenader, no problem. I thought what you said was very well stated and I think it may have gotten lost in all the noise. So I repeated and built on top of what you wrote a little since I was having similar thoughts. Good job on that. I think that we both think in some similar ways on some issues since I have been on the same "voting" side as you before, but we probably express ourselves differently. Maybe we are both making some progress after all. :) Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It isn't about 'voting' or 'sides', it's about WP:V. As much as I dislike the evils that indoctrination like YEC do to (young) minds, the topic we are commenting on is a film that passes the notablility test... and that's it. You'll never see any 'just because I don't like it' from me, and if our goal is WP:V, we'll always be on the same page ; ) TP   15:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say this was about voting on sides. Only that I have reached similar views to you on a few issues. Of course there are differences in how all editors gauge these situations and seeing eye to eye not always a result, but what else can one do but try to make the points and see if others agree.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm harping this point because it's rather worrisome to hear you mention it so often. Any activity here is not about contributors (or their 'opinions' or 'agreeing'), it is about fact and, together, accumulating a body of evidence and considering the preponderance of evidence therein (to determine fact). Even voting, opinion and consensus can be overturned if evidince shows that it is demonstrably wrong.
I'm sure there are many many things we 'agree' on, but if we both compare what we 'know' to reality (instead of (selective) opinion, etc.), we're going to agree on even more ; ) TP   19:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't mention it often at all. I only have a few times and only very recently mainly with you. I hear you but people on wikipedia are volunteers and so are the admins. They do not always follow protocols or even have the same interpretations of the polices and plus the fact that the policies on wikipedia are also changeable, not fixed, means that editors will have some gray areas in their interpretations. "Facts" or like you said "compare what we 'know' to reality (instead of (selective) opinion, etc.)" are also always interpreted differently. There is no "absolute" knowledge that editors or even laymen tap into to reach their conclusions about reality and all of its complexity. Politics is an easy example, no? Why do people not agree with each other there? Facts are usually not obvious nor do they lead to any particular conclusion, so this creates some more gray areas. Its only natural and this is seen more clearly in controversial topics. WP:BUTITSTRUE and WP:TRUTH have some interesting things on this stuff. When reliable sources are available much of the issues disappear. Not all, but some major ones do. So obviously, stick to reliable sources since they are the core basis for any content on wikipedia. I usually do, even if I disagree with the contents of the reliable source :) Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Not following protocol and 'interpreting' things (especially facts) is simply not permissible on Wikipedia, we cannot 'allow' (let alone capitalise on) that. There's a preponderance of evidence... and that's it! TP   06:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I wish it was that simple and linear, but it doesn't look like it is that way in practice [2] and [3]. But at least we can all try!Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ramos1990. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Irreligion In the united states [edit]

I moved this part to you talk page, as it is more personal criticism than is good for the talk page.

Do you agree with this table?

Religiosity question Spirituality question %
yes yes 48%
yes no 6%
no yes 27%
no no 18%

I think this is a straightforward conversion of the figure in the authority (including the caption and explanation in the text). From the table it is clear the number of people who answered no to whether they considered themselves religious is 45%-46% and the number of people who answered yes to whether these considered themselves religious is 54%. The last is also mentioned in the authority. I don't think you can get much light between "irreligious" and not "religious", and we don't have any data whether people consider themselves "irreligious". Please also read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine calculations and Wikipedia:About_valid_routine_calculations and Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization and Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not an advocacy tool. You are crying of irresponsible "extrapolation", "synthesization" while all I am doing is adding two numbers from a figure. Moreover, you are taking everything but the kitchen sink into a discussion about the how the researchers processed and represented the data, and refuse to answer simple questions about your understanding of the article, which would help resolve the matter much quicker that all these evasions. All we are discussing here is how many people answered "no" or "not" or in other ways negatively to to the question "Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not". It's really that simple. You appear not to agree with the result. You appear concerned with what readers will think about Americans when reading the result. I told you already that other indicators could be useful. But that's no reason to cry WP:SYN over and over again.

I was TRYING to get to that the "result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection" of the sources, by trying to clear up what the confusion was. But due to your repeated evasiveness on VERY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS about statements in the authority it is impossible to come to a consensus. Empty statements like "It is as it reads." are NOT an explanation of what you think what they mean by "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions.", which (to me appears to indicate) that they split up the "not religious" into the ones that ticked "spiritual" and "not spiritual", and you did not confirm you agreed to that when specifically asked.

It's impossible to know what people think when they consider themselves "generally speaking" religious. Maybe they say no because they are didn't go to confession last month, or because they are not a monk, the pope or Jesus, or because of stigma. But asking them questions like that is not the worst way.

About affiliation: many people probably consider themselves part of certain communities. How many people believe in Hell/God may be a better indicator, who knows. But the only sources I have for whether people consider themselves not religious when asked straight up are pretty consistently in the 40-45% range and going up rapidly. Jmv2009 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here, but there isn't much to discuss, aside from what is already on the talk page. Routine calculations are simple arithmetic when things are not controversial. Like it says on the policy page "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." If we were talking about simple things like age, or population size or other simple and obvious matter, it would not be controversial.
But here we are talking about really complex things like religion and irreligion which include beliefs, belonging and behavior. So with you clumping 45% into "not religious" is NOT "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age..." because the meaning of "religious" and "not religious" are NOT obvious! Again the majority of the "unaffiliated" have religious beliefs (Belief in God 68%) and those who are "spiritual but not religious" are mostly people with a religion (60%)! Clearly the meanings are both VERY complex - are those without a religion, religious? And are the religious, nonreligious? They all seem to go in both ranges in one way or another and so the simplification of "Religious" or "Not religious" is not helpful, nor is it what the source says. If you want to use another statistic to twist facts, the you might as well say that since most Americans are affiliated with a religion (around 80% based on Pew Research center's Religious Landscape) that America is a very religious place. (I would disagree with that oversimplification too since the dynamics are more complex than that.) The fact that most people affiliate with a religion in the US, should make you rethink of labeling a massive chunk as "not religious".
Since you admit that "It's impossible to know what people think when they consider themselves "generally speaking" religious.", then why do you make a value judgment in the voice of wikipedia! If the source said it specifically, then attribution would solve the issue, but the source does not make that claim - you are deducing a different conclusion by yourself. The question from Pew on religious person or spiritual person (and even WIN-Gallup's clumsy wording) was not really a good one since it was either yes or no. There was no room for flexible answers despite the fact that everyone has shades of religiosity and secularity. So these rigid numbers are not really representative. If a survey asked you if you were "loyal to Britain" yes or no, would the ones who said yes be patriots and the others traitors? I think you get the idea. Such dichotomies must be contextualized, not isolated.
The easiest and straightest things on the source you mentioned is that 18% are neither religious nor spiritual. It is also the most relevant for the irreligion article since clearly these 18% are rejecting everything and not juggling around labels like religious or spiritual.
Also if you believe that lumping is straight forward, then why can't you cite a direct quote specifying your claim? I did for mine and I even quoted them in the citation. If the source specifically says 45% are "not religious" then you can add that since the source made the claims and meaning and interpretation, not you or me. You and I are editors, not experts on the issues so inserting our interpretation of the numbers on such complex things like religion are not simple basic arithmetic with obvious meaning. The sources have to make the interpretation when dealing with non obvious things like religion or spirituality or irreligion. Readers can make their own interpretations on all of the mess of beliefs, belonging, and behavior by reading the sources. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

See, you are still evading/not addressing
A) Whether you agree with the table
B) Conflating data processing methodology (which is mathematics)/data processing with whether the right questions were asked.
C) How YOU interpret "The results presented here are the product of combining responses to those two questions."
D) Whether you think they split up the people who responded negatively to the religiosity question according to how they responded to the spirituality question.

You are still accusing of
E) twisting data/extrapolating/drawing improper conclusions (we are not drawing conclusions, certainly not at this point, we are just trying to see if we agree on the "how many people answered negatively to the religiosity question?", as we don't appear to agree on that)

All we are doing here, for now, is to see if we agree on whether the calculation is correct and obvious.

Let me unpack your comment:

So with you clumping 45% into "not religious" is NOT "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age..." because the meaning of "religious" and "not religious" are NOT obvious!

You are conflating two things here:
(i) Whether the meaning of "religious" and "not religious" is obvious or not (to the interviewed and/or the reader).
(ii) Whether they answered negatively or positively to the religiosity question.

These are two very different questions. You are addressing (i), while I am trying to addressing (ii). The (ii) is I think well represented by the table, and I think is clear, while (i) is philosophizing/speculation, which we all agree we should not do. Please state your view on (ii): Do we know how many people answered negatively to the religiosity question? It's that simple.

By the way, although your essay skills are high, you are still flunking that 8th grade math test. Jmv2009 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please also do not make insults here. I already told you how to provide a solution, but in you making interpretations on a Pew report which does not even discuss nonreligosity to extract your interpretation of non religiosity is disingenuous and in fact WP:SYN says: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."
You are not providing an actual quote or anything for your lumping. How does people answering no “Do you think of yourself as a religious person, or not?” equate to they are "not religious" in anyway? This is common mistake for people who are unfamiliar with the sociology of religion or with surveys on such matters. To go from "not a religious person" to assume "not religious" is the problem. If people were to say no to a question like, “Do you think of yourself as a jealous person, or not?” would you all of a sudden assume automatically that they are not jealous in anyway at all throughout their lives? "Religious person" is an identity, being "religious" is behavior or attribute. Here is an easy example of how identity and behavior/attributes are usually not congruent. Pew did an analysis of people who do not have belief in God and found that most do not self-identify as "atheist" [4]. They wrote "According to the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, 5% of American adults say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit, but only about a quarter (24%) of these nonbelievers actually call themselves atheists." Since the majority of those who lack a belief in god, do not identify as "atheists", does that mean they actually do believe in God? Of course not. This is the type of analysis that spreads apart the variables, not lumping them like you are trying to do.
So obviously definitions do matter!! These are not routine calculations because the understandings are not linear. Identity vs behavior do not match at all and many people actually conflate the two. People have have contradictory identities and different behaviors. So this is part of the issue.
In sociology of religion; beliefs, belonging and behavior are not the same. I expect you to do a better analysis of the report. The solution is simple, as I have said many times already does the source say that 45% are not religious EXPLICITLY? I have quoted the source in broad context since the situation is complex and have stuck to the source. Pew is actually more careful on how they word these reports because they know that there are many dynamics at play. Lumping can be an issue on wikipedia because you can easily re-lump the numbers like this: 27%+54%= 81% of the US population is either religious or spiritual. I would object to that kind of lumping too, though it is just as valid as your lumping. Half empty or half full? I think that the numbers should be kept like the source has them - separated to prevent subjective lumping by editors. Let readers interpret how they want with the separate variables (as the source has them) and they can even looks at the source directly, we should not interpret the data into lumps because it inflates numbers and mixes the variables too much. Please continue on the irreligion talk page next time since this really has nothing to do with me and there is no need to get personal.
Pretty much the source is in the article and the complex interaction is already there too. All this is about is an incorrect lumping in an info box, which the source does not do - they keep things seperate. Why you are wasting much ink over it is beyond me. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)