Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 5 February 2009

Welcome to my talk page!

• Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
• If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
  • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Snowded}}.
  • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
  • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
  • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

• Archive to 29 May 08
• Archive to 21 July 08
• Archive to 30 Nov 08
• Archive to 31 Jan 09
• notes and working

Ayn Rand Article

I'm pretty much leaving this article alone until the ArbCom decision comes in. I've tried to get some sort of compromise going, but its pretty clear that this is not going to happen until ArbCom resolves the behavior issues, so I'm just going to save my breath. What do you think of doing a philosopher RfC once the behavior issues are resolved? Idag (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea on the RfC, although I am hoping ArbCom will make a ruling on the evidence question and proving a negative. I keep resolving to leave it be but then succumbing to temptation. --Snowded TALK 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have promised to neither edit Ayn Rand nor Talk:Ayn Rand, as one of the "conditions" required from Kjaer was that I should not be involved, and it was small sacrifice to make to walk away from that cesspit of bad faith and insults it has become more like in recent weeks if it meant that more people would agree to mediation (I was dragged into the ArbCom because of the allegations about myself given, and then I was criticised for still commenting at one point by Kjaer when he had made the allegations that seemed to require a response from me! It is a soul-destroying and motivation-sapping experience for me and the whole of wikipedia, I think.) However, on the question of whether she was or wasn't a philosopher, I wonder whether a compromise solution might be the following: to accept that the perception of her within the USA is different from the rest of the world, and use a form of words like "She is considered to be a philosopher and novelist within the USA, but is more mainly considered to be a novellist and writer outside the USA who wrote about philosophical issues." I think from trying to sort out the facts and verifications from the insults and other stuff flying around that such a sentence could be justified by judicious use of footnotes to expand the sentence and provide verification for (a) the claim that within the USA she is thought of as a philosopher; and (b) the claim that outside the USA she is mainly thought of as a writer and novellist.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd buy that and have thought of suggesting something similar. However I think we are dealing with people for whom her status is a totem and we probably need arbcom first. You could suggest it, I see no reason for Kjaer's intimidatory tactics to succeed. --Snowded TALK 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if she's considered a philosopher within the USA. The academia completely ignores her. Granted, that's not determinative of whether one is a philosopher, but it does make her different from other acknowledged philosophers. Idag (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its all down to weight and the repetition on the talk page with the most crazy of analogies indicates why this needs a ruling. Its the same on intelligent design and other pages, same issues. --Snowded TALK 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturalism talkpage

Just to clarify my comments; am I explaining it incorrectly? Because it feels like I'm either completely failing to make myself understood or the user in question is just not getting the idea, one of the two. Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a good job. The user just doesn't get it. He made similar edits to Liberalism and a theology article. If you look at what he then did to his talk page I think we are dealing with someone with problems. --Snowded TALK 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Theology

You might want to check out this. I think he just crossed the line into causing more harm than good; being ignorant of wiki-policy only creates so much good faith. I also find his mentions of 'the truth' in discussions quite worrying for a contributor to a neutral encyclopedia. Ironholds (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree and I responded with one mistake! He has been so irritating I thought he had been banned, but I think his talk page says it all. I think he is just ignorant to be honest, rather than pernicious but the effect is the same. --Snowded TALK 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mendacity"

Perhaps I shouldn't have used such strong language, but I am so utterly frustrated with the way Steve and Kjaer (and for that matter some of the other Randites) continually distort the opinions of others as to be utterly frustrated. My question: do you think I went out of line? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Kjaer's posting was a gross distortion of history and in at least two points a plain and provable untruth. Both of them are now (as ever) forming a sort of tag team writing long intimidatory posts whenever they are questioned. The trouble is I think they may genuinely believe the things they say but then that sort of behaviour is a long standing feature of cults (Randism being a cult has citations by the way Steve assuming you are monitoring this). The effect of their strategy is to drive editors away and that may well be their intent. --Snowded TALK 07:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I will leave if ArbCom asks me to. I am not, however, inclined to give into petty bullying. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My advice would be to take the high ground. If Kjaer and Steve want to be unreasonable, let the diffs on ArbCom speak for themselves. If they raise an AGF argument, ignore it and answer only to the merits, if any, of the proposed edits. This way, we can lose some of the rancor and increase the chances of actually resolving these edit disputes. Just my $0.02 Idag (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Except for the part implying that Kjaer and I am unreasonable, that is excellent advice. And, if the aim is to reduce rancor and increase chances of working together with less friction, it would be extremely important to avoid character assasination, like calling someone a liar, or dishonest, or mendacious. Retracting those - deleting those comments, with or without an apology, would be a sign of commitment to the principles of civility. But, I will admit to having a personal bias in this area after decades of practicing honesty. --Steve (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a fair point, but that latest Kjaer post on the talk page was incredible. If nothing else it needed pointing out on the arbitration page, with the linkage so that Arbcom can see the bahaviour. --Snowded TALK 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think one can merely let them continue to post the messages they do on the ArbCom page for all the arbitrators to see, and then deal with them calmly and collectively, as I had to do this morning/last night in response to Kjaer's unsupported and incorrect idea that Snowded had somehow recruited me to involve myself on the talk page: they seemed to forget that if that were true, then some of their messages seem to be quite inconsistent with what they are alleging they believe, as well as not being in agreement with the facts, and that needs to be pointed out. I was particularly struck by the inconsistency between saying I was not able to act like an administrator on the one hand (and therefore should be criticised), and then that on the other hand I must use some administrator's tools to their request, otherwise I should be criticised. That was in the context of (early) thanks for my actions and requests for help later on coupled with messages that I listed as diffs, along with refusing to block them which Peter Damian suggested should be done. My own worry is that the sheer number of these comments means that one either has to go way over the 1000 word limit, or one lets them go by unanswered. I want the complete record of my edits to be placed better, and may put it on the talk page, as I think a look at that is illuminating in what happened compared with what they say I did. I think ArbCom really should be stepping in very soon to just put a stop to it. I didn't even want to get involved again when I withdrew, but felt forced into it by their constant allegations of impropriety (and I recall, I even got criticised for this because I was still editing on matters of Ayn Rand).  DDStretch  (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The truth of how I came to get involved on the talk page is quite simple: I was sorting out some old books in a few boxes, and came across copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead that I had bought on a recommendation years ago, but which I had never been able to finish reading as I thought the writing was not to my preferred style (I found myself unable to read them for any length of time.) That prompted me to look at Ayn Rand. I often do that when things IRL catch my attention: I just go and see what kind of job wikiepdia editors have made of a subject. I thought the article was strangely structured, and so I took a look at the editing history to see how that had arisen, and was immediately struck by the edit war. A glance at the talk page horrified me. I could have walked away, but I felt that administrators have responsibilities, and that, even thoigh the problems appeared severe and difficult, one should not turn away just because something is difficult when one has an administrator's role. The rest is history.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep and the sooner Arbcom do something here the better, enough projectile weapons have been utilised to damage plantigrade appendages by now. Steve's comment above indicates the depth of the issue as I think he genuinely believes what he says; one is reminded of Wittgenstein's argument in respect of ostensive definitions. --Snowded TALK 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom definitely needs to step in soon. A lot of reasonable Objectivists, like Jomasecu and Skoromokh, have been driven away from the article, and the longer this dispute lasts, the more trolls its going to attract. Idag (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict funny aside) I favour Karl Popper over Wittgenstein, and Ludwig can be interesting, even though they both (according to some reports) "crossed pokers" at a Cambridge seminar. I read that Wittgenstein liked to sit in deckchairs, and often had them around the houses where he was staying. A friend of mine in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (where Wittgenstein worked during WWII as a hospital porter) lived in a flat that Wittgenstein was reputed to have stayed in. In a corner of the room was a really heavy old wardrobe that hadn't been moved in years, it seemed. It was decided to move it, and behind it was a door into a kind of cupboard. My friend pulled the door open, and out fell a really old deckchair! Coincidence or what, who knows, but we couldn't stop laughing for a while about this when it happened.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Idag on the editor population of the article. To Popper, I must admit that I always sympathised with "poker"solution to Popper and the tedium of debates between critical realists and social constructivists that are his inheritance. Love the deckchair story - that should be published. --Snowded TALK 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning, Stop Name Calling

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

This is not a matter for debate.

The terms Randist, Randite, Randroid, cult, cultist and so forth are simply uncivil name calling, and are considered personal attacks. No matter what anyone thinks, people who identify themselves as Objectivists or Rand supporters should be referred to respectfully by their own self identification, and not some alteration of Rand's name. Any further comment will be reported to administration.Kjaer (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)