Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 4 June 2007

Hello Orangemarlin! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Orangemarlin 01:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Archives

/Administrative battles /Amusing Vandalism /Miscellaneous 1 /Miscellaneous 2 /Religion 1 /Religion 2 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 1 /Evolution-Creation Discussions 2

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For being bold and because I can't believe you haven't got one yet! Sophia 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are AWESOME!!!

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		You might not know me, but I know you. I've seen you editing articles about evolution, and I just wanted to say thank you so much for contributing so much to Evolution articles and reverting vandalism and original research, among other things. I love you! Keep up the good fight! Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A little something for you

		The Undeniable Mechanism Award
		For arguing the undeniable mechanism, upholding intellectual rigour, and expanding evolution topics, it is my pleasure to pin this badge upon your most evolved chest. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

evo-devo

Now that things seem to be stabilizing at the Evolution article, would you consider looking at and working on the evo-devo article? As you mentioned, at one point, this is an important growing area. I did some work on it a while ago an exhausted my relevant knowledge, but it still seems like the length and quality of the article do not match its importance. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gulp. What am I going to get myself into? LOL. I'll check it out! Orangemarlin 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't want you to over-commit!! I just know this article deserves to be better than it is. You can start by looking at one editor;s suggestions here and also I have a comment in the section of talk that follows (on, concerning the tendency to microevolution). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Biology

A very worthy goal. Once I've got Evolution through to FA I will certainly try to help! TimVickers 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also a worthy goal. I've actually quit editing that article after you showed up. You've really improved it and ought to be commended. I figured I'd manipulate you over to Biology, get you started, then I'd go find another article. LOL. Orangemarlin 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You fiend! I'm on to your evil scheme now! TimVickers 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NT literalism

I ought to have gotten back to you sooner, but I didn't have the time at the moment and then it slipped my mind until a recent essay was posted on my talk page. Have a look at this. Astonishing.

First let me say that you responded to a much stronger statement than the one I actually made. By "credible" I meant that the NT places Jesus in a cultural setting we can identify and which we know really existed, which is much more than we can say for the presentation of the ark story in the OT. While I do of course believe he really lived, that isn't what I was saying to CS just then. My point to him was that it's possible to believe in Jesus without abandoning the facts and reason.

Your objections go wrong from the very first, I think. We have a considerable amount of evidence that Jesus lived. While a secular scholar might discard the miracle stories of the Gospels and other NT material, there's no reason to not treat them as we would any other historical documents. The earliest material, the first of the Pauline epistles, was written within a decade or two of the events and thus well within the living memory of those who ought to have known if it was false. The picture we get from all this of Jesus is astonishingly consistent for a fictional character created over the decades-long period in which the NT was composed, by people not in direct contact with each other. It's less astonishing if Jesus is a real person. The NT at least as reliable as other such material where the existence of the people described is not seriously questioned.

For people of that era, we most often have to rely on indirect sources. Consider: of contemporary written material we have practically nothing. Yes, we have some philosophers, poets, and historians; all those whose work medieval scribes thought worth recopying. But what of the vast amount of official records and paperwork which a government as extensive as the Roman Empire would have required? Practically nothing except for an accidental survival here and there. It was written on papyrus, which needs the aridity of the Egyptian desert to survive for that long, but this is exactly the kind of material used to record someone like Jesus in his interactions with the authorities. In general, the only way we know of anyone from that time whose name was not preserved in a recopied manuscript is if it was literally carved in stone, or stamped in metal. Even for Emperors we often have to rely on their coinage for information.

If it's "telling" that there is no direct evidence of him, it's even moreso that there was no direct contradiction of him either. For all those who objected to Christianity and sincerely wished it would go away, the one objection never raised to it is that its founding figure never lived. It seems likely he was well-known in Jewish circles, but no one ever claimed he was well-known outside that context until his cult became widespread. Until then he was a Jewish preacher of the type the literati of Rome would have taken no notice whatsoever. How many of the rabbis of the time described in the Talmud can be independently verified? I do not doubt there are a great many people of the time, more important than Jesus to their contemporaries, of whom we now have no record.

It has proven hazardous to rely on the absence of evidence to debunk anything, the NT not excepted. Just one example among several: It was once a current opinion in some circles that the Gospels were fictionalized to the point where Pontius Pilate was made up out of whole cloth. (I suppose they ascribed his appearance in Josephus to later Christian tampering.) Then his name was found carved in a dedicatory inscription at Caesarea Maritima. Events like this, which happen from time to time, are one reason why I'm never too worried about current opinion in archaeology that seems to contradict a Christian historical claim. They're almost always based on an absence than something concrete, and are not infrequently disproved over time.

I think mentioned Socrates. It's really amazing that his existence is never questioned, and yet there is even less evidence for him than for Jesus. Again, there is no direct evidence for him, and he wrote nothing himself. What we do know of him comes from three main sources: two of his disciples, Plato and Xenophon, and several playwrights, particularly Aristophanes. The former idealize him out of all recognition and use him as a mouthpiece for their own ideas; the second parodies him. From all of these we get such dramatically divergent accounts that he might as well have been a standard fictional character to whom it was convenient to attach stories, or attribute dialogue.

The treatment the Jews have received at the hands of the Christians over the years is tragic no matter what the underlying truths. I really think it was always more the irrational fear of the "other" than anything else. No matter where they lived, faithful Jews were always an identifiable group distinct from the general population. In general, I don't see that any religion has been a cause of violence as often as it seems. I think it most often is used to justify violence that people want to carry out regardless, but want to appear morally upright when doing it. This is much easier if you can make people believe that God wants you to. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus the mythical article

I love this place. Having a full time job positively counts against you - huh? Sophia 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I give up - wikipedia will always have crap religious articles. Sophia 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course but I needed someone to let off steam to! I just haven't the time to pursue at the moment as I am snowed under, so I will just have to pick up the threads when I can and hope my worst fears have not been realised. Sophia 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark

I just noticed your edit summary. Armenia is certainly a country, and as far as I'm aware Mount Ararat straddles the border between it and Turkey. --Gene_poole 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I know that. I meant that Ararat exists in Turkey, at least the part of concern with Noah's Ark. I know why it was changed however, because I'm not going to assume good faith--someone cares about the official name of where it's located. There's not a lot of room in edit summaries. I was more concerned about the POV edits however. Orangemarlin 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth

Hi. Well, all I have are personal opinions, for what they are worth. I spent a few minutes looking over the edit history and it is not clear to me what the main points of contention are - if you could spell it out for me maybe I could give better feedback. From what I reviewed I saw four main issues.

1. process. I agree that someone should not make major changes to an article without discussion, in principle.
2. does it matter whether Jesus was a real person? NOR is our savior, here. The question is not does any or all editors think that it matters whether Jesus was a mythical being that some people believe acted in history, or a real person around whom a large body of mythology has been developed. The question is, what do the major scholars writing on the issue think? My own understanding is that most believe he probably existed but that what we call Christianity was based as much or more on the incorporation of wide-spread near-eastern myths, than that guys actual life and acts. Maybe I am wrong. That doesn't matter - the point is, whatever it is that the main sources (scholars) the article draws on claims, ought to be in the article. If the major proponents of this approach are divided, the article should say so.
3. should the article state that these scholars are skeptics who espouse a naturalist view? Well, I do not find that objectionable because I assume that people who are skeptics and espouse a naturalist view are proud of the fact. That said, I would again appeal to NOR. I think the issue is this: what are the assumptions and methods used by these scholars? The answer should come from the books and articles used as sources themselves. Most ggood historians, especially when writing on the Bible, try to summarize their assumptions and methods and it is good to educate readers about this.
4. was the Talmudic Yeshu Jesus? I happen to believe that he was, but in a non-historic (i.e. mythic i.e. the Rabbis were constructing their own myth to counter the Christian myth) way. But again, NOR - it doesn't matter what I think. There are some scholars who have made just this argument, such as Jeffrey Rubenstein (no relation). However, this is contested and there is no I repeat no proof that Yeshu = Jesus.

So, is this what you were looking for? If not, please let me know and tell me more what you think the real issue is. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

myth

if you can specifiy a few particular edits, perhaps I can comment more specifically - or provide me with two clearly distinct versions to compare. --Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

An example of what I find so disturbing about the religious right

Just watch this one: --Filll 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't get what's going on or what it's intended to mean, but it reminds me of some of the sequences from W.R.: Mysteries of the Organism. Well, as long as she's enjoying herself....... dave souza, talk 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth

Instead of blanket reverting me under factually inaccurate labels you could move yourself to explaining your objections on the article talk page. Str1977 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh you mean to gain consensus? Explain actions? Like you and your friends did with the article? You're right, I should spend 15 more seconds explaining myself than you did. Orangemarlin 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are enjoying your condescension. In any case, I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and on the talk page - explain meaning more than just throwing around acronyms. And note: I have no friends working on the article, the one coming closest is Sophia, which with I do not share a POV, and Paul B. I am not friends with Jbolden, if you are referring to him. Str1977 09:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't care who are your friends or not. You could say you're friends with the Pope and how am I ever going to believe you one way or another. The fact is that the article got completely destroyed, and it was done in an underhanded way. I have no clue if you were part of the group that did it, but all I see are POV edits from you and the others. I do not condescend. Do not state what you "think" I am doing. I am matter-of-fact about this. I see POV, OR, and other issues, and I revert. It truly appears to me that you are destroying the article. If you are not, then why so much own research in it? Orangemarlin 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in guys but having worked with both of you I know that if we can just cool down, identify the real wild card here (jbolden) and backtrack to a place we all recognise, that we now have the sort of people around to build a good article. Yep Str has a POV but so do I and I know from working with him in the past that he is knowledgeable and fair in a dispute. Str was in no way part of the little huddle that had a "good idea" one day to mess things up and I personally was relieved to see him arrive as I knew we would then have discussions that were not "mickey mouse". I respect you both immensely and would love it if we could all work together constructively. Sophia 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am still completely puzzled about what happened to the article and what the sides are. I wish we could roll things back to how they were.--Filll 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orange,

I did not call YOU names but commented on what I think unacceptable behaviour. You may disagree but it is not name-calling.

You didn't call me either .... and that was actually what I complain about. That you didn't tell me your concerns.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept your explanation that I was "caught in the cross-fire": I did not edit based Jbolden's version - he was reverted quite independent of me and my edits - you did revert only my edits. And even if your explanation were true (I guess you reverted me without lookin under the impression that I upheld Jbolden) simply repeated unexplained reverting is not solution to this. :If you do "not read edits" than you should not revert them. "Yet, you continued to edit them without either listening to or maybe accepting our concerns with the base article." Not at all - I discussed several items on the talk page and got a go ahead. You reverted me asking where this was discussed but when I pointed it out to you, you didn't react (except by reverting).

Nor can I accept the reasoning that I was editing based on a disputed version (untrue, except from jbolden's perspective) and that was reason enough to revert me. If I revert someone on another page I must ensure that later valid edits do not get lost. And if I don't deem them valid, I must explain my case.

I also object to your deeming me guilty by association. I had contacts with Dbachman before (I can't remember where) but not on this article.

I will not get involved much on Noah's Ark but must say that article's are always subject to change, categories included. That's what the disclaimer on the edit page says. But never mind. I agree that the Ark is a mythological ship under a certain definition of mythology (with which I disagree but which happens to be accepted). The treasure ship however doesn't seem to fit that word under any accepted definition.

I copied your talk page content to the article talk page to get the discussion going. Had you only replied to me or would others not have ignored the issue, thinking jbolden the only issue worth rising, it wouldn't have come to this.

I am willing to let bygones be bygones and hope for peace. Could you please indicate on the talk page which of the several version is acceptable to you so that I can work on it. Str1977 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your metaphor quite well and do not assume violence. Metaphors are metaphors, after all. I will have a look into the new situation tomorrow. Str1977 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as myth

Changing the phrasing of a title is not "massive". People do it all the time. Since the actual debate was taking place on the Jesus-myth hypothesis page I explained it there. Do you think you could discuss matters in a less, shall we say, melodramatic fashion. Paul B 07:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is underhanded. If that's melodramatic, how about you try putting your arms around consensus, and maybe we won't. Please don't post your attacks on my page. Orangemarlin 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

God article

Reverted your removal of the paragraph on Intelligent design and tweaked it slightly to address the issue your edit summary raised. The paragraph still isn't ideally worded, but the topic is clearly relevant to the article and I believe the language should be improved by editing and sourcing rather than simply deleting. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that ID does not "prove" the existence of G_d, I guess I don't care. The editor of that point, as I recall, has been just this short of spamming a bunch of articles with what I believe are POV statements. I guess that was my point with this editor. But your edits look fine, as they usually do!!! Orangemarlin 19:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I must confess I don't know very much about the details of ID as the Discovery Institute promulgates it. However, I have this vague recollection that a few federal judges thought this particular distinction didn't really make a difference, so I imagine the point could be argued either way. I agree sourcing isn't adequate. Feel free to add a {{fact}} tag and/or some counter-argements, although no more space for that than the original paragraph, please. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus myth

I hope I didn't let you down - the edit history just confused me. Maybe you wanted to avoid naming names but if there is still a problem there and you can direct me to the two versions that represent the conflict, perhaps I can still help? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey slr, no way did you let me down. The attacks on numerous articles seems to have subsided, so I have time to work on more fun projects--I got some others to do the heavy lifting on the Jesus/myth articles. Frankly, I'm rather stupid about the whole Jesus thing, but I know when I'm reading POV stuff. I did read the EVO/DEVO article that you had suggested a few weeks ago. I found out that I knew nothing, and spent more time clicking on wikilinks reading up on other stuff. I was going to thank you for "wasting" about 3 good hours of my day while I learned some fascinating stuff. In fact, because of the links, I ended up at the Biology article, which I found to be a travesty. I've worked on it on and off, but I need to focus on it. I figure I've done some things to get it started, and the smart biologists around here will get on board. Orangemarlin 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Persecution by Christians

Please click on the wikilink above! When we've finished with The Mythical-Hypothetical-Loonie Jesus Theory we need to sort out why Misplaced Pages seems to think all persection by Christians is "historical". I tin Gay-rights and pro-choice groups would like to know this interesting fact! Sophia 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comments

I ask that you also stay off my talk page. Thank you! 76.166.123.129 18:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)