Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loxley~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 6 January 2006 (→"self-promotion"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Alienus, and a warm welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Misplaced Pages? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Misplaced Pages. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 01:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To do: Social contract, Secular humanism, Antihumanism, Self-evidence

Follow up on reverts to: Eliminative materialism, various Dennett-related pages

Check changes to: meme

Ayn Rand's atheism

a number of philosophers who completely agree with Rand on the topic of atheism nonetheless find her basis for it laughable and frankly embarrassing.

What do you have in mind here? Her basis was that theism is arbitrary, and occasionally she also said there are contradictions in the concept of god. Could you be specific? Michael Hardy 02:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Life is short, so I'll speak bluntly. Dismissing theism as arbitrary might apply to fideism, but it fails to address the numerous, ostensibly rational arguments in favor of other forms of theism. Granted, these arguments aren't necessarily any good, but that's all the more reason to refute them instead of just acting as if atheism were obviously true. Given the number of theists out there, atheism must not be so obvious. Furthermore, some of these arguments come with rather comprehensive, although not necessarily correct, worldviews with their own apparently consistent ontology, which quite soundly refutes the ideas that they're just arbitrary. Claiming contradictions in specific definitions of God is a fairly useless tactic because, even when successful, it just spawns new and more nebulous definitions. It also doesn't help that she was lukewarm to evolution, leaving her with a dangerously incomplete worldview. In short, she was lazy and overconfident. This attitude really pisses off philosophers, especially those who are atheists on a sounder basis. Understandably, they view Rand as an easy target, a natural straw man for apologists to trivially defeat, then claim a defeat of all atheism. In short, they see Rand as the sort of ally that they'd rather have as an enemy. Interestingly enough, this happens to be exactly how I see Michael Shermer. Does that answer your question? Alienus 06:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I haven't been back to this page for a while, but I just read your comments. I think if you're going to put something about these matters in an article, you should be specific. Your comments were terse enough to make it clear that it wouldn't take very many words: state which philosophers take those views (a few of the most prominent ones) and what their objections are. Michael Hardy 19:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Let me see what verifiable sources I can dig up on this. Alienus 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, do you know anything about Wallace Matson? Former head of the philosophy department at Berkeley. I first heard of him in connection with his writings on atheism (but I haven't read any). I later heard that he wrote a favorable review of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but I've never seen that either. Michael Hardy 00:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

With a few noted exceptions, most academic philosophers ignore Rand. However, you're right that Matson did write some stuff on Rand, such as http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/other/ptoar.html. The review on Amazon says, "But the nadir of this collection is probably Wallace Matson's "Rand on Concepts" which claims to reformulate the Objectivist theory of concept-formation in a way that "preserves what is of value in Rand's treatment" and then proceeds to get rid of concepts altogether, claiming they are a dispensable "mysterious and subjective... third entity between word and thing"!" There's more at http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/bryanregister/universalityofconcepts.html. So, what about him? Alienus 00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Narnia:

Christian Parallels

I changed the end of the Christian parallels section on you. You were right, Evangelism is a common enough term (perhaps more so among people likely to visit the narnia article). Anyway, I removed the sentence explaining what it was and instead wikified it. Hope that's still okay with you. Boy, that article is attracting some interesting character. Lsommerer 22:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your change. I did tweak it slightly to lower-case evangelism and preface it with "Christian". If you think the adjective is unnecessary, feel free to drop it.

As for the current interest by characters, it shouldn't be any surprise. Lewis was, in life, an odd little person who gained a reputation that exceeded him. Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion by John Beversluis:

"Sections devoted to biography read like hagiography. We seldom encounter a mere fact about Lewis; accounts of his behavior, attitudes, and personal relationships are instead reported in the wide-eyed manner of the impressionable disciple. To describe him as a wonderful friend is a lamentable understatement; we must be assured that no one ever was a better friend. To praise him as brilliant in debate is entirely too lukewarm a compliment; we are told that C. S. Lewis could have matched wits with any man who ever lived. To endorse him as a Christian apologist of the first rank is altogether inadequate; his apocalyptic Vision of Christianity must be likened to that of St. John on the Isle of Patmos. After a while, one longs for patches of sunlight to dispel the reverential haze. One tires of enduring these excesses and of having to plow through equally ecstatic testimonials in book after book."

I found this quote at http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/apologist.htm, which is one of a group of brutally negative articles about Lewis. I also found references suggesting that he had an illicit sexual relationship with the older woman who lived with him (http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/shadow.htm and http://www.mezomorf.com/movies/news-11833.html), though nothing even hints at this on his hagiographic Misplaced Pages article. *sigh*

I don't want to string this guy up. I just want the articles to be somewhat in touch with reality. I hope that's not too much to attempt. Alienus 23:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down now. I've been working on some of the sections that User:Marshill suggested. It looks like he's moved on to another victim. Lsommerer 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I got fed up with the ((citeneeded)) infested part of the critisism section, and replaced it with a somewhat condensed previous version. I tried to take everything out that the citations didn't support and also condensed the defense down to the most telling points. Look it over when you get a chance. Lsommerer 01:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a fairly light copyedit to smooth out some rough spots. Otherwise, you did fine. As for Marshill, I'm keeping an eye out for further damage. Alienus 04:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

4.246.30.203

Hi there, I noticed you revered edits by this user on Polygamy. I ran into some questionable edits from this IP myself, but I lack the knowledge to make the correct adustments (perhaps complete reverts). Could you take a look? Thanks. -- Solitude\ 09:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. As you've probably seen by now, I did find other edits by this person that needed reversion or heavy editing. They're very, very biased towards Mormonism, to the point of being willing to hide unpleasant but well-supported facts.Alienus 18:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on Blacks & Mormonism

Are you British? I am trying to understand why you copyedited some of the things you did; "Black" is considered acceptable American usage (at least by Mirriam-Webster). And I've never seen a Boy Scout troop spelled "troupe". The Jade Knight 03:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

According to my dictionary of American English, "black" in the sense of African Americans is indeed "sometimes capitalized". Unfortunately, the Mormon article couldn't decide whether or not to capitalize and it was driving me nuts. So I just chose the more common way and tried to make it consistent. As for the "e" in "troupe", that was a typo. Alienus 04:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardly a typo; the correct (American) spelling for a BSA unit is "troop". Again, I've never seen "troupe" (or "troup") used in this context. Thus the reason I ask if you're British; "troupe" strikes me as a British form (which, of course, could equally apply to Canada, Australia, etc.) Moreover, your use of punctuation above is nonstandard for American English. The Jade Knight 03:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Troupe" refers to a company of traveling performers. Etymologically, it's the same word as "troop", only it retains its French spelling. Since it's a homonym, it's not hard to see how self-dictation would swap one for the other. As for my punctuation, I don't see anything particularly unusual about it. Alienus 14:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you defend your usage, rather than answering my question. Etymologically, you know, "shirt" and "skirt" are the same word—it really doesn't matter, as interesting as it is. I was just curious; I've never seen an American misspell "troop" as "troupe". I can understand if you are particularly unfamiliar with the BSA, however, how this could happen. The Jade Knight 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, I didn't defend my usage, I acknowledged that it was an error and detailed the type of error it was. To be painfully clear, it was the sort of error caused by subvocalizing while typing, leading to self-dictation that is prone to substituting homonyms. As for being familiar with the Boy Scouts, I used to be one. Alienus 17:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for Mediation re. Loxley and Dennett-related issues

Dear Alienus: Hello there; my name is Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and leader at the Mediation Cabal. Firstly, I would like to apologise for the extreme delay in processing your mediation request, which has been caused by my temporary absence from the Mediation Cabal. I have commenced handling of your request today, and have left a talk page message to User:Loxley inviting him to comment at the mediation request page for this case (you'll note the mediation request process has changed since you posted the request; each request is now on its own individual page). I will commence mediation as soon as Loxley has given his consent for the mediation to take place; I decided it was fairest to wait for him to comment before proceeding to make recommendations, although I already have a good idea of the best course of action to take on this matter. Probably what I'll recommend to you both, if Loxley agrees to enter mediation, is that you both take a voluntary break from philosophy and epistemiology articles until some sort of mutual discussion has taken place to define the best way to proceed. I do hope that I have not entered far too late, and that I shall be able to assist you in this matter. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do realize that there's been an unusual delay in this, so I've tried to make a virtue out of necessity by avoiding the contested articles and giving myself time to gain perspective. However, now that I look back, I can see why I got so angry.

It looks like Loxley has gained an unhealthy and unwarranted sense of personal ownership which has led him to stake out his turf and defend it against all comers. As a result, the pages he counts as his own have been distorted by his biases.

I've left them alone, but the ones on more specialized pages, such as Cartesian materialism simply haven't gotten changes by other people (with the exception of routine categorization and wikification that doesn't fix the underlying errors). In short, Loxley has succeeded in scaring away attempts at remediating his bias and adding more substance to stubs.

Please see the mediation page. As you have mentioned it, I think it would be a good idea to start with Cartesian materialism. loxley 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

If the entirety of your suggestion is that we both take a break from these areas, I'm not sure how much good it'd do. I've already take a few weeks away from the articles he's damaged most, and they're still damaged. If we both took a break, the problem would just start again once we returned. And if we didn't take a break, the problem would just start up again a bit sooner. The underlying problem is that he considers himself an expert on issues where he is neither knowledgable nor unbiased. If I'm the first to clash with him, I'd be surprised. Alienus 00:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Medcab request - mediator evaluation has been made

Dear Alienus: I have completed my initial evaluation of the Dennett dispute, which I hope should be of some assistance to you. I would be grateful if you would review what I have written, and to pay specific attention to the recommendations made there. Please write any comments you wish to make on my evaluation in the section provided underneath. You can find the Medcab case proceedings at:

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/06 12 2005 Alienus and Loxley edit war over Dennett and Philosophy of the Mind

I look forward to your response, and I am most sorry for the time it has taken me to come up with a proper evaluation. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Abortion health effects

Since asked, I will address this in further detail: I would think that we'd want to lead with the most relevant information, and save the lists of details for later in the article, as per the inverted pyramid. A list of all risks is boring and uninformative. Worse, it's misleading if it doesn't include prominent mention of the fact that many of these risks are negligible for early abortions but quite serious for late ones. In fact, listing risks without explaining this fact would serve to make abortion look more dangerous than it really is, since the vast majority of procedures are performed early in the pregnancy. Likewise, carrying a pregnancy to term is also risky. I don't have a citation handy (so I didn't say anything to this effect), but I seem to remember reading that an early abortion is, on the whole, safer than giving birth. Failing to mention this would once again make abortion sound more dangerous than it really is. Is our goal to give an honest explanation of abortion's health risks or is this an excuse for partisan abortion-bashing? Think it through. If you want to dispute the factuality or relevancy of these additions, this is a good place to do it. Until then, I've reverted the text. Alienus 16:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you havn't known this now you do: The health effects section used to be health risks. Like all medical procedures, abortion has health risks. If an article doesn't have a list of health risks, its neccessarly dubious, because it isn't the full picture. As for that "fact", there is no surgery with 0% risk, and we would be incorrect to imply so. If you wish to improve this, don't give broad statements, give facts and figures. The second paragraph states:

It is difficult to accurately assess the risks of induced abortion due to a number of factors. These factors include wide variation in the quality of abortion services in different societies and among different socio-economic groups, a lack of uniform definitions of terms, and difficulties in patient follow-up and after-care.

In otherwords, the paragraph contends we havn't the foggiest idea! Until we see some statistics that say someone knows what they're talking about, we're likley to keep it this way. Furthermore, is the risk increase fair in situations where abortion isn't done as a proper medical procedure? I think poisoning yourself to abort is equally risky no matter how pregnant you are, but thats just my guess. The early abortion/giving birth statistic is dubious and irrelevant. Our goal is to write a proper article If you accuse someone of partisan bashing again, you take it to their talk pages, and you do it nice. Tznkai 18:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the need for hard numbers, as my recent edits have demonstrated. The early abortion statistic is exactly the one a woman would be most interested in if she had an unwanted pregnancy and was considering going to a legitimate doctor for a medical procedure, as opposed to drinking Drano or squatting on a wire coat-hanger. For this reason, I consider it highly relevant, and there seems to be a consensus forming in support of this conclusion. As for accusations of bias, I think you'd do well to avoid becoming the target for them by being more civil. If you explain things politely in Talk instead of proclaiming your conclusions as part of a revert comment, you will seem less biased. I reserve the right to call things as I see them. Alienus 18:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Great job on the NPOV in Abortion

This is regarding your edits -- excellent job. I guess I am so "immune" to the various terminology used in both sides of the debate that I didn't even realize how blatantly POV it was to call a pregnant woman a "mother". You're right, by definition, if she does get the abortion then she is not a mother (barring previous or prior kids, anyway). --Cyde Weys _vote 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is something that seems to happen to abortion-related pages over time, where "mother" and "baby" start to crawl in to the terminology. Purging it is a bit like spring cleaning; necessary, but you should expect to do it again when the season rolls around. As it happens, a good percentage of pregnant women who have abortions were mothers at the time and even more eventually become mothers, but that doesn't mean it's honest to call them mothers now just because a condom leaked. Anyhow, thanks for reverting the re-insertion of mothers so it didn't have to become an edit war. Alienus 01:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Pro-Life Article

I put citations in talk page to avoid clutter. -- Jbamb 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. As it happens, I do Watch the Talk page, so I was already replying before I got this memo. Alienus 23:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

ARI link

I tried to look at your ARI link, but it is dead. Seems like a good idea, tho, to show up any inconsistency. Carrionluggage 05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not my link, just one that gets vandalized a lot. I seem to have made a career of reversing this particular act, though. Not sure why the site is down at the moment, but it's usually up. If it goes down and stays down, then I guess we'll have to drop the link at some point. Alienus 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

abortion discussion

Hey Alienus - that discussion got really lengthy on the abortion page under medical definitions - I think I probably got carried away in my comments there. I just wanted to make clear (but not on the abortion page, as it is irrelevant there) - a number of the links I gave specifically mention prevention of implantation as being a form of abortion from various religious/pro-life POV's. The issue then becomes one of intent; the Catholic Church, for instance (and I pick them b/c I know the subject matter), would argue that b/c a person who takes a regular contraceptive has not only the intent of preventing pregnancy, but preventing implantation if fertilization occurs (which is the intended function of many oral contraceptives, and devices such as the copper IUD), then the intent is the same as abortion should fertilization occur. Thus from their point of view, use of a contraceptive carries the same moral consequences as abortion should the zygote be prevented from implanting and die (of course, issues of culpability arise if a person is unaware that this is a function of a contraceptive). This is all I was trying to point out, in regards to your standing question as to whether or not anyone equated regular contraceptives to abortion. As for non-Catholics, if you follow the link to the Association of Pro Life Physicians, they actually refer to any medication or device that prevents implantation as an abortifacient. Cheers - I hope that our banter on the page will not inhibit constructive co-operation! DonaNobisPacem 07:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I want to reassure you that I don't take our disagreement personally. On occasion, I have seen people who were dishonest and deeply hostile, and I've reacted with hostility of my own, but this is not the case here. At worst, we disagree about some fine points. I can live with that, without ever considering you an enemy.

Second, I'm glad you responded anywhere but on that never-ending Discussion subject, because the thread had long exceeded any reasonable size, much less its original purpose.

With that out of the way, let me address the issue. I understand that, since a woman taking certain hormonal contraceptives is accepting the possibility that a fertilized egg might be prevented from implanting, she is accepting the possibility of an abortion (at least in the clerical/ideological sense, though not the medical). In this way, contraception might be comparable to abortion.

However, even here, there is a difference. In a medical abortion, not only is there a fetus implanted in the uterine walls, but the woman knows for a fact that she is pregnant and is consciously deciding to end that pregnancy. In the case of a zygote being prevented from implantation, the woman doesn't know that this is happening, and in fact, the odds are that it isn't. Moreover, the primary goal of the contraception is indeed to stop conception, so any (clerical) abortion is a foreseeable side effect but not the intent.

For this reason, even though, to those who equate conception with pregnancy, hormonal contraception can be seen as comparable to and even sometimes leading to a (clerical) abortion, it cannot be eqivalent to one, as the moral culpability is not at all the same. In the Catholic conception of sin, intent is necessary.

I'll add one more detail, just to offer contrast. A woman on the pill most likely will not ovulate. A woman who is not on the pill (and who routinely has sex) is likely to become pregnant. However, before a noticable pregnancy occurs, she is even more likely to have a zygote that fails to implant or that implants then self-aborts. The majority of fertilized eggs die before the woman ever has a clue that a fertilization has taken place. In this way, taking the pill lowers the chance of a (clerical) abortion, while refusing to use one increases it.

Just stuff to think about. Alienus 09:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"self-promotion"

Please stop reverting. The link added by Owl is highly relevant and a useful contribution; I read it thoroughly in fact. Content should take precedence over some notion of "self-linking is bad". In any case, it cannot be called self-promotion anymore, since I am effectively adding the link myself. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll let someone else revert it. Alienus 10:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok. I find your response rather bizarre. Even if self-linking were bad because it is shameless self-promotion, doesn't it defeat the purpose to revert someone else adding the link? Especially if someone else sees some value in it? Are you really that confident that people will stop someone from adding a useful link because the first person to do so was involved in supposed self-promotion? It may be someone will remove the link, but hopefully it will not be for your reason, but because they disagree that it is a good link. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this owl fellow at work for a while now. They make changes, sometimes beneficial ones though often neutral and almost always with language errors. But when they add links to their own web site, these get reverted. Alienus 10:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have also been keeping an eye on him. Primarily because he is a SME that Misplaced Pages could benefit from. I've left some comments on his talk page to help ease him into the wiki-community and help avoid problems. Recently I told him that some of his links were not appropriate, e.g. "scary Bible quotes" on Religion, and were IMHO reverted correctly; however, in my brief investigation of his self-linking activities, I ran across interpretations of quantum mechanics, and in this case, I thought it was appropriate.

He has complained about the blanket deletion of his links. I think rather than a blanket deletion, regular contributors to the page can decide whether his link is good or not, based on content. The vast reverting done by El_C, I think, did more harm than good. It convinced Owl that his good-faith additions (of course, he has a POV, but I think he honestly believes all his links were appropriate) were being reverted for no reason other than he was self-linking. I realize that we don't always extend this courtesy, but given his already valuable contributions elsewhere, e.g. in meta-ethics, and his potential future contributions, I think he warrants the courtesy of a real edit summary. How else will he learn to engage in discussion over the editing process? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration on Cartesian materialism

I have contributed all the external source data on this article, have been happy to include a full discussion of Dennett's views but cannot bear to see the concept defined incorrectly from the outset. I am taking this to arbitration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests