User talk:ජපස

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


I'm getting ready to write a guideline proposal; be my guest in contributing. Mangoe (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a list somewhere of the AfDs that can serve as "precedent" including, of course, the J. Barnett saga and a few others. My argument has always been that the general rule for accepting a prodigy as article-worthy would be serious (as in not off-hand comments) engagement by the epistemic communities in which prodigious achievement is claimed. For example, if the claim is that the child is a prodigy in mathematics, there should be some evidence that the child has actually published in the requisite journals. If the child is claimed to be a prodigy in music, there should be some evidence of performance at the level of a professional achievement that would normally apply to musicians (or a recording contract). Etc. jps (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I've made a first cut, if you'd like to take a look. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This was just the impetus I needed. I tried to contextualize a bit and tone down some of the language. Also included a list. jps (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


Hello. I have never seen you visibly edit on any article on fabulous creatures whatsoever, so I don't know what sort of ideas you have.

But when you revert an article (Mokele-mbembe) to a purged version, don't just tell us you think Bloodofox's edit is superior, as that gives us no indication as to specifically what underlying reasoning you yourself have to make you think the purge is justified.

You need to take responsibility for your own edits, and be able to articulate the reasons why you think the 32kbytes of content merits removal. You can't just say this other guy did it and you agree with him. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. I have read your arguments and the other arguments, read both versions, and I have made my conclusion. jps (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring on this without demonstrating you've read any of the source material to make a decision on your own as to what is WP:DUE content or not.
Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision. That is not responsible editing behavior in Wikipedia.
Specifically, tell me how you yourself justify the "conclusion" you have reached that the expeditions of Powell and Mackal should be eliminated altogether. These are quite central to the topic. They are described at length even in Prothero's critical even antagonistic treatment of the topic in Abominable Science.[1] --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Kiyoweap, you are currently at 3RR and have been reverted by three people. Complaining about edit warring here is only weakening your position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Why are you on your 10th username? That seems a bit... excessive. Enigmamsg 05:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Because of off-wiki harassment. jps (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. Enigmamsg 18:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Skylab mutiny?[edit]

Hi! I see you've had some interest in what to do with the Skylab mutiny article. In an attempt to address concerns brought forth on its talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Skylab_mutiny, I have prepared a draft of a substantially different article on the same topic at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. I think it's nearly ready to go, and I would appreciate your input before I take that leap. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Take the leap. It is an improvement! jps (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Aquatic ape hypothesis[edit]

Dear ජපස, @JzG: and @Jps: and just in that action I have shown my ignorance of coding and wiki etiquette! Anyway my question is concerning your signatures; can an editor use two signatures at the same time, and it seems to me in the same conversations, and for what reason. My concern, being honest, was that yet another disruptive editor flying by Aquatic ape hypothesis following some article / publicity / etc, (in this case an action which, at first glance, I doubt, but will, when I can, check what changes have happened), and editing what has taken many many editors a very long time to get to a reasonably informative and balanced state as it is. Am happy for either / all to reply. Thanks Edmund Patrick confer 11:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Is your confusion over the fact that I had to switch usernames? If so, I apologize. It did not have to do with the AAH article. jps (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
It was, still is a bit, but I will get my head around it. Ta Edmund Patrick confer 15:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

ජපස or jps[edit]

Hi. Another editor saw fit to remove both my comments and yours, but I found your response, nonetheless; thank you. I am, in fact, curious, but not savvy about technical issues. Sometime in the past I figured out how to sign my name YoPienso instead of Yopienso, which is my official user name. Now I can't find any of that stuff again. To me, that's a slight, unconfusing difference--changing one lower-case letter to upper case. However, I did not recognize ජපස as your initials in another language since I'm ignorant of that language. I wondered if they were characters of some alphabet or script unknown to me, or if they were some kind of emoji or decoration. I never imagined when I saw comments signed with ජපස and other comments signed with jps that one and the same person made them. This gave the appearance of two people holding the same opinions; in other words, it gave the appearance of a false consensus between two different individuals. Hence, my comment about sockpuppetry. I would think this could be confusing to other WP editors, too. You would likely become frustrated trying to explain to me how you have only one signature while I clearly "believe I see" two, so no need to trouble yourself with it. Very best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


Would you care to respond to this? You may have missed it in the shuffle. Wrt your allegations, indeed I'm claiming that there is wide agreement that this movie is a documentary, and I provided links to the sources. Do you dispute that? YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, ජපස. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, ජපස. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ark Encounter article ban lifted[edit]

Hi. Per this, your article ban on Ark Encounter has been lifted. Let me know if it was logged somewhere and if that needs to be removed. --regentspark (comment) 18:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! jps (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I've logged the successful appeal here, Regentspark. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

Happy Holidays![edit]

Snow Covered Trees Starry Night (166032201).jpeg Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!


Hi, we've interacted, although it unlikely you remember I want to put that on the table and establish this is not some sort of grudge-post. I do hope this message finds you well :-) This is not your field I think, but we are both skeptiks of a type and I am curious, if asked, then what would your answer be? What is a gorilla? cygnis insignis 14:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A genus of great ape. jps (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
A simple question, a simple answer. At least almost … What is a "great ape"? It is nice to see you are still around. cygnis insignis 15:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
A family of primates. jps (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I needed this sanity check, thank you mate. cygnis insignis 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Friend Dlo[edit]

You are a friend of Dlo, a F()//?AOo)))))000000oTt77Jjjjj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis (no article necessary)[edit]

Your recent edit on Answers in Genesis ([2]) removed the 'the' in "instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science". However, I believe the article should still be in place. Consider the sentence "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but the lazy Tom said it was too much of a bother for him". Clearly, "Tom" is a proper noun, and so it wouldn't normally require an article. However, in this case, an article is needed to indicate that it was Tom who said that "it was too much of a bother", and it is also the same Tom who is "lazy". Getting rid of the article, in this case, would create the impression that "Tom" and "lazy Tom" are two different people. Linking that back to our case, getting rid of the 'the' in "the pseudoscientific creation science" creates the false impression that "pseudoscientific creation science" is the common term used to refer to the pseudoscience of "creation science". With that in mind, please reconsider your most recent edit.OlJa 17:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"...instead supports the pseudoscience of creation science." is what the article used to say. This was pointed out, rightly, to be unwieldy. Saying it "...instead supports the pseudoscientific creation science." is a word choice that is incredibly awkward and probably not correct usage wise. While your point is true that there is a reading of this sentence which indicates that perhaps there are forms of creation science that are not pseudoscientific, unfortunately, your using an article also suffers from this. Using a definite article implies that there are two forms of creation science, "the pseudoscientific one and the one that it not pseudoscientific." Using an indefinite article implies an undifferentiated number of options, "a pseudoscientific creation science as opposed to other ones." Using no article can imply that creation science is pseudoscientific as a rule which is what our sources indicate. Perhaps a better solution is to just go with Dave's version from the talk page. Also, perhaps you should have posted this at Talk:Answers in Genesis? Just a thought. jps (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see how it's incredibly awkward, and I am pretty positive it is correct usage-wise. Your version would also be correct if "pseudoscientific creation science" was a term, but, unfortunately, it isn't.
Let me explain the function of "the" here again: the definite article, used in this way, does not imply there are two forms of creation science - just as saying "the lazy Tom" does not imply that there is also a Tom that is not lazy; in fact, it implies the opposite: that the creation science that we are referring to, which is the only creation science there is, is pseudoscientific - in the same way that "the lazy Tom" implies that the Tom that we are talking about, who is the only Tom there is, is lazy.
I didn't post this on Talk:Answers in Genesis because I thought it was a really minor issue, and that you'd simply self-revert and that would be it. If you don't do that, however, I will probably take it to MOS.
Also, I know you probably won't take this advice seriously, but I think that, when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false. I've already noticed that some of your earlier good-faith edits were attempts at correcting grammar (such as this one (adding "for" to "advocates") and this one) but turned out to be unnecessary/incorrect in the end. I may not be a good editor when it comes to behaviour, but I do believe I know a thing or two about grammar.OlJa 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, let's look at your example. "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but the lazy Tom said it was too much of a bother for him." This would not pass the muster where I'm from. Preferred, "I asked Tom to give me an apple, but Tom lazily said it was too much of a bother for him." for example. Note that English, however, doesn't have very clear rules about when to use an article or when not to use an article. In this situation, what sounds good to your ears is grating on mine. Better to come up with an alternative like Dave's which sidesteps the issue. jps (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The two sentences are saying two different things: in the first one, "lazy" is an adjective which modifies "Tom"; in the second one, "lazily" is an adverb which modifies "said". That is, the first one says that it is Tom who is lazy, while the second one makes no claim about Tom, instead saying that the way in which he said that it was too much of a bother for him was lazy. Saying that English doesn't have very clear rules is problematic, as it then justifies the use of what is almost unanimously accepted to bad grammar. This approach won't get us anywhere. I can't give you the precise term which describes the usage of "the" in this way, but, according to what, to my knowledge, is accepted to be rules of the English language, the current version is misleading. It's unfortunate that you won't take on my advice, but I will have to take this discussion to WP:MOS, where the issue will hopefully be resolved.OlJa 18:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do bring it up at WT:MOS. I insist that there is no rule you can point to which indicates your preference for including a definite article to mean what you want it to mean is standard. Furthermore, although I am getting the impression that you are very rule-bound in your approach to many things, understand that your position is that of linguistic prescription which is an approach that I find to be counterproductive when it comes to points where reasonable people can disagree (and I predict you will find others who disagree with you on this point). Take a chance on opening your mind a bit here. You might learn something. jps (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!OlJa 19:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Mediation Policy[edit]

Please note that the Mediation Policy still exists and, if you read it carefully, expressly applies to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though formal mediation through the Mediation Committee no longer exists (and the language in the Mediation Policy referring to it was removed), DRN in most cases does mediation and private mediation can be arranged on a case by case basis and is still also possible. The change you made in the DRN header was inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Creationism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Material world and Humanity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
for your heroic defense of the encyclopedia against invading UFOs (and the conspiracy theorists who pilot them.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Craig Revert[edit]

Good Morning,

I wanted to follow up on the discussion we were having in the edit summaries of the William Lane Craig page. To summarize the talk page discussion (as well as the three previous discussions where this issue was raised and settled), this is a discussion of the reception, at large, of Dr Craig. The debate challenge with Prof Dawkins is certainly a notable event (notable enough that it is also mentioned on Prof. Dawkins' page). Prof Dawkins' response (especially given Prof Dawkins' notability) is a good inclusion to a section of a biography dealing with reception. Further, the quote by Prof Came, being both a referent to that incident and an indicator of Dr Craig's standing in the field of Philosophy of Religion is worthy as well. I get from your reversion that you disagree. If you have a more detailed reason, I'd invite you to the talk page to discuss it. Alternatively, if you respond here or on my talk page I'd be happy to discuss it with you further. Squatch347 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) This discussion should probably happen at Talk:William Lane CraigPaleoNeonate – 13:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I invited him in my initial edit summary to add to that discussion. Since he didn't I thought I would reply here and extend that invite. Squatch347 (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I am active at that discussion. Unclear why you think I'm not. jps (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think I've not seen that many tags before (well, maybe from LeProf) —PaleoNeonate – 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

──────────We could pare them down, but literally all of them apply. It's an outrageously bad article. Is there a collapsable function? jps (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently |collapsed=yesPaleoNeonate – 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If it still doesn't work (can't see it collapsed without JS here), I recommend also trying:
{{Multiple issues|collapsed=yes|1=
 ...other tags...
PaleoNeonate – 16:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Seemed to work for me. My god, I haven't seen such a shitty article in a long time. jps (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Glad that it worked; I'm in a situation where I'm constantly interrupted so cannot currently put the concentration to assess an article (or to participate constructively on its talk page), but will try to look at it soon... —PaleoNeonate – 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

Apologies for not notifying you on your talk page. I thought notification on the related talk page was appropriate initially, but see that I need to notify everyone individually.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Squatch347 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:GretLomborg. Thank you. GretLomborg (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:GretLomborg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. jps, I believe you should know that that comment was not acceptable. I believe that in this conflict you are on the right side, but I will not let you make such comments. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just stop engaging with him. jps (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: Right side or not, do you regard this response as adequate? cygnis insignis 19:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis, how do you mean? Proof is in the pudding: if jps says something like that again I'll have to block him, but I think jps is a man of his word (hmm that sounds sexist, but you know what I mean). Drmies (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Drmies And excuse this jps. The user has undertaken to desist from engaging in that manner with that other user, once you called it out, not to never do it again. (And I don't personally read that as sexist, it is thought to be a notable attribute for a man (which sounds sexist, but …)) Regards, cygnis insignis 07:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience topic ban[edit]

Hi there, I wasn't aware that Petrarchan47 was under a topic ban. Would you mind pointing me to where it was imposed? Are anti-vaxx theories definitely out of scope? It's certainly unrelated, as it's pushing fringe medical theories. R2 (bleep) 16:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to her participation at Sharyl Attkisson, it has nothing to do with Petra's t-ban which is GMOs. Atsme Talk 📧 00:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you please point me to where it was imposed? R2 (bleep) 00:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The log. Atsme Talk 📧 01:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)This is the original AE. Part of if was battleground behavior in the topic, but there were advocacy problems and pushing fringe theories with respect to GMOs, which also falls under the pseudoscience topic. I don't know what's been going on elsewhere lately with them, but if there are problems with vaccines or other areas of pseudoscience related to medicine, that would at least be grounds discussing expanding topic bans to those areas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and who were the prosecutors? (That's all you needed to know.) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
No, there was no battleground behavior on her part, but there was for others. BLP/N supported Petra's position. Atsme Talk 📧 20:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it might be better if you want to talk about Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs) to do so at her page. I have pinged her for the right of reply here. I do worry that her WP:ADVOCACY is problematic, and I have always been transparent about this concern. jps (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
JPS - weren't you just warned about AGF, yet here you are with unwarranted concerns about advocacy regarding an editor who is simply adhering to BLP policy and expecting others to do the same? BLPN overwhelmingly supported her position. I could understand paid advocacy and COI editing, but that isn't happening in this case at all, believe me. Atsme Talk 📧 21:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
In fairness, JPS is the only participant in this discussion to have pinged the other editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree...and we should probably take his advice. I've got dog articles to edit. Happy editing!! Atsme Talk 📧 21:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, the only conversing required about this is for jps to provide proof of his claim made here regarding the reason for my ban. It isn't me who is discredited by this mention of my t-ban. The reason for it is very clear, and has been very clearly mischaracterized, disparaging me on a talk page that is getting hundreds of views. This isn't fair to me unless your claim is true. So please, cite your proof at the RfC where I've pinged you. Thanks, petrarchan47คุ 22:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

If you do not think your topic ban was due to WP:ADVOCACY, I doubt I can make you see it. Others have corroborated and so, I think WP:DROPTHESTICK is where I think it best to leave it. If you would like to clarify your positions vis-a-vis vaccines or genetic engineering, I am happy to consider your points, but historically and ongoing, I see only evasion of the main issue. jps (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
J, she can't/shouldn't discuss that topic at all. It's a bit of a stretch to claim advocacy unless your referring to her being an advocate of NPOV & BLP policy. In Attkisson's case, it was simply a matter of including her denial of the accusations made against her in Snopes (which began as a one-man blog, raises operating funds on Go Fund Me, and has had serious issues per Poynter). Inclusion of the denial in her BLP was overwhelmingly supported at BLPN - policy prevailed. Hope you're doing well. Atsme Talk 📧 13:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I understand that she cannot discuss genetic engineering, but I categorically reject the claim of WP:CRYBLP and the associated radical NPOV cult. Your attempted impeachment of Snopes is a crude promotion of ignorance and it looks to me it's being used as a weaponized rejection of empirical fact checking. This has all the appearances of claiming a false sense of balance because, ideologically, it appears to me that you and your compatriots have a soft spot for the anti-empirical world view of anti-vaxxers, chemophobics, and GMO conspiracy theorists. I do not know what exactly underlies your ongoing tolerance (if not outright promotion) of associated pseudosciences and conspiracy theories, but that is the thing I am concerned with here, not some distraction about concerns over Snopes' finances or deflections about whether or not a person who has been caught glad handling the people who believe that vaccines cause autism deserves a right of reply in Wikipedia articlespace. jps (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, my kids and all the grandkids have been vaccinated. When I travel, I beg for vaccines. I have so many frigging vaccines that I look like a pin cushion, so don't even go there and don't lump sum me with an advocacy. I don't do advocacies. From my perspective, you are conflating journalism with whatever fits your agenda, and in doing so you are overlooking WP:PAGs. I'm not going to debate the anti-vac war with you Mr. WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT - my position with that topic is WP:IDGAF. Re: Snopes - I stated verifiable facts published in a highly reliable source and quite frankly, you can take it or leave it, it is not my concern. I am equally as skeptical of investigative journalism but earning multiple Emmy-awards does carry some weight, as does the fact that she actually reveals her sources which is where you should be directing your anger rather than at the messenger, the same thing we tell readers when they criticize us. There are lots of things I don't like what journalists report, especially on the internet today with all the clickbait sensationalism - but guess what? There are lots of others to choose from without focusing on the BLP of female journalist to make into a coatrack. My focus is strictly on WP:PAGs and our 3 core content policies that govern BLP Oh, and remember this? You're doing it again. Have a nice day. Atsme Talk 📧 17:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
You're taking things personally when I'm pointing out the effects of your philosophical approach. Your position is essentially that an Emmy award could somehow be indicative that she is right and Snopes is wrong. This is an anti-intellectual position, and it is one that I've been fighting against for a long time. jps (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahhh...glad your back. I prefer to keep admiring your brilliance rather than having to defend against it. I agree with you in part about the Emmy's, but only as it applies to today's clickbait environment. Technology has made it too easy to acquire information, (info that is readily accepted by some without verifying because of the urgency to be first to "break the news"); therefore, not all of it is trustworthy/accurate so it's best to exercise caution. I don't think you were old enough to be following Attkisson's reporting back in the 90s (neither was I - that's my story and I'm sticking to it). I vaguely remember her back then - I was doing a bit of field production for CNN, and also working with PBS affiliates and producing a couple of commercial tv series. I can attest to how difficult it is to be recognized with an Emmy for investigative journalism, especially for a female - the risks they took back then weren't worth the price some paid. I much preferred producing nature programming - point was a difficult road for women to hoe - (and don't you dare run with any puns 😂). I think the following discussion summarizes my position well (I keep it with a couple of other quotes near the top of my UTP):

To include it in a BLP, or not??

BLPs wherein a subject's work, beliefs or ideologies are perhaps more controversial than the actual subject, should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but many such cases involve editors who have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views.

(quote by Zaereth edited for brevity; Jimbo Wales agreed with Zaereth’s explanation.)

Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 21:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page gnome)Therefore, not all of it is trustworthy/accurate so it's best to exercise caution that's also true of TV shows (think of all the crap on popular "history" channels), of activist/promotional magazines/sources, sometimes even true about specific articles of a reliable source, we even now have low quality predatory journals... and obviously true for Wikipedia articles, where we can try to help. I absolutely agree about the need for vigilance, independent verification and critical thinking... A person's biography is not a good place to debate scientific theory or ideological beliefs; such debates belong in the articles that focus on those topics. For BLPs, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views. that also depends on the context and how independent sources cover the subject: what is the person known for? What was the general reception of their work? —PaleoNeonate – 22:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it is important to understand that people are not monoliths. Atkisson can both be a winner of an Emmy award for good investigative journalism and also be guilty of doing some shoddy work with respect to reporting on vaccines. These are not mutually exclusive characteristics. jps (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Craig article[edit]

Hi there. I don't know if we should talk more at the dispute page. I haven't been on that page before so I might be wrong to move here, but I didn't want to clutter things and irritate the admin. What I wanted to say is: I honestly cannot tell why you think the earlier version of the Craig article was a whitewash. Could you say more about why you think that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The earlier version spent considerable time expounding upon Craig's positions on various philosophical, theological, and rhetorical perspectives without accommodating any critique. In some instances, this was because Craig's position was so obscure as to not have engendered any notice from the relevant community (for example, his criticism of eternal inflation models has been noticed by zero cosmologists, as far as I can tell). What we were ending up with was an unwarranted soapbox, as far as I can tell. My opinion is that if no one has noticed a claim made by Craig, it likely does not belong in the article (it's probably not a WP:PROMINENT enough idea to deserve inclusion). This is why third-party independent sources are so important. They will help us frame the article as to which positions of Craig's are noteworthy and which are essentially ignored. jps (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with providing references to the most prominent responses, including critical responses, to each view that is discussed. However, I would note that it is not ordinarily the case that an article on a particular thinker--whether in Wikipedia or in any encyclopedia--takes a highly critical stance as opposed to an expository stance on its subject in biographical entries, and I would think that this fact should play some role in striking the right balance of how much criticism to include. I actually am surprised that you seemed not to like the idea of looking the Plantinga article as a guide here; it's not that we have to have consistency with that article or something like that--I'm just saying that it looks like a useful example of the sort of balance that seems right: at the end of most of the subsections, it includes several brief citations to the literature giving further (usually critical) discussion. That seems like it's really helpful, and gives the correct impression that the discussion is ongoing and the views of this person are obviously not the final word.
As far as I can tell, the glaring problem with the pre-dispute version's statement on inflation is that it states something that is just not in the cited piece by Craig. In fact, that 1992 paper does not contain any reference to inflation at all. So sure, that's a problem, but I'm not sure it is a whitewash; rather, it's just not an accurate summary of the cited source. Surely the other editors would agree that this should be rectified. Do you know where Craig discusses inflation? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Platinga's article isn't particularly good as an exemplar either -- he is considered something of a philosophical dilettante by many academics (has a similar problem with having his ideas ignored by relevant community, but one thing at a time). In any case, Craig isn't quite sophisticated enough in his technical literacy to know what exactly it is that he is propounding when he defends finite time cosmologies (he criticizes Linde's model in particular) via a major misconception on his part. Since no one who has the technical skills to scoff at this silly error cares to read Craig, his misunderstanding goes unnoticed. That's why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hm. That's just not true about Plantinga; he is extremely well cited, with several of his books receiving over one thousand citations on google scholar. He has published hundreds of articles, with dozens and dozens in the very top philosophy journals. He is very broadly taken seriously in metaphysics, epistemology, and of course philosophy of religion. He authored the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Religion and Science. So I have no idea why you would have said what you did about him. But forget that; it's really beside the point. What I was suggesting is that we could include additional references to critical responses at the end of each sub-section in the Craig article. Doesn't that seem like a good idea? I feel like the other editors would likely agree with such a plan.
I don't really care what you think about Craig's ideas, of course, just as you should not care what I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks about them. My question was: do you know where (and indeed whether) Craig has actually published views on inflation (not a popular piece like the one you linked, but a scholarly publication)? I do not know where he has done this, and no citation of such a discussion is in the pre-dispute article. If we don't have a source, then of course the article should say nothing about inflation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It really is true about Platinga. I know in Christian circles he is admired, but outside of them he is considered a kook for the most part. This is even among those who take seriously some of the comparative religion aspects of Christian thought (e.g. the problem of evil). I agree, we should set this aside. I'm not particularly interested in sifting through Craig's publications looking for a citation to Linde. Go ahead if you would like to do so. jps (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Nope, not true about Plantinga. 2453 citations on a book published by Oxford UP. Three festschrifts with contributors like Kit Fine, John Pollock, Ernie Sosa, and so on and on. Hundreds of articles, thousands upon thousands of total citations of his work in top journals in the field. Your view is just plainly and obviously false. Well, here's the olive branch: I agree that, without citations, we should not include anything about inflation in the article. I don't think we should parrot his popular pieces, either. Got any other examples of stuff you didn't like in the first article, because it sounds like we agree on the one example you gave (though not for your reason).Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This discussion should ideally be at the article's talk page. Not only does it allow wider audience but when assessing consensus about important points, talk page archives also help. If you two decide to move this text there as well, feel free to delete my current post. —PaleoNeonate – 22:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a little unclear on where this should all be discussed. I'm fine with moving to talk page; I'll leave it to jps. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Someone who cannot abide by criticism of Alvin Platinga, I imagine, may be unable to fairly adjudicate what is or is not relevant to an article on other Christian apologists. I agree that the talkpages of such articles are the best place to discuss these matters. jps (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lol, I can't "abide by criticism" [sic] of Plantinga? I don't think his treatment of the modal ontological argument is right, I don't agree with his general perspective on free will, I think his statement that Christians have to be libertarians about free will is somewhat ridiculous, I strongly disagree with his approach in philosophy of language, and on and on and on. I gave reasons for thinking that he's broadly taken seriously (number of citations, OUP, top journals, recognition from top philosophers in festschrifts). You responded by saying something completely and manifestly absurd about me. That's not what we call rational discussion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
If you think number of citations, journal publications, or getting a book out in the Oxford University Press makes a person immune from being identified as an intellectual dilettante, then you are the one with the problem with rationality. jps (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll take your non-response to my point that I'm critical of several of Plantinga's views as a concession that I actually am able to criticize him. On the question of how seriously he is taken, you tell me what evidence could even conceivably be produced to show that someone is taken seriously in his field. If vast numbers of highly cited (I might add reprinted) publications in prestigious blind-reviewed venues, together with multiple festshrifts containing contributions from top members of the field does not show that someone is taken seriously, then what would show that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Do you like fighting on the internet or something? What is your problem? jps (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Disputed Statement[edit]

At Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fourth_Statements_by_Editors you stated: "it does not look like there is much desire on the part of the other editors to gather third-party sources." That's just not true. I've spent quite a bit of time gathering third party sources and adding inline cites. In fact, it's pretty much the only thing I've done with the article. I think you should strike the comment. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, I have not really seen you look for the kind of independent sources I think are of the highest quality. The best you came up with was the SEP which was fine (though flawed -- see above), but it appears to me this effort has stalled. jps (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I dispute that, and note I've probably done more work to find third party sources and incorporate them into the article than anyone involved recently. For instance I've dug up academic book reviews, etc. that summarize and/or critique his work. I do acknowledge that there are some differences of opinion on sourcing between us, but IMHO your bar seems to be unnecessarily high, among other things. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
That's my point, though. I feel like you aren't trying to meet my bar which I think is of the correct height. jps (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Disagreement and failure to follow your personal preferences is quite different from "it does not look like there is much desire on the part of the other editors to gather third-party sources." There is demonstrated desire to gather third-party sources "on the part of the other editors." - GretLomborg (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────No, I think I've made myself clear as to what constitutes third-party sources. jps (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have made your own opinions known on that topic, but the issue is the sweeping statement that denies others' efforts. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I do take a dim view of your efforts on this front, it is true. jps (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:DRN, you may be blocked from editing. Removing a statement from a discussion page simply because you consider it incorrect. Project pages such as noticeboards are subject to talk page guidelines, and the comments of other editors should not be refactored, changed, or removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

DRN thread[edit]

Hi there, I'm a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (and a long time veteran of dispute resolution on Wikipedia generally) and I'll be re-opening the discussion there on William Lane Craig. Can you please leave a comment at the noticeboard (I have put a section there for you to do so) to note that you are happy to participate in the discussion. I'll take things from there. Cheers. Steven Crossin 16:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. I figured you'd get a notification, but just FYI, I undid your edit at DRN here. Nothing personal at all, have just set up the discussion a certain way to help us stay on track. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions, especially on how to proceed. Cheers :-) Steven Crossin 07:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


This is not intended as an extension to the DRN, only a personal question. As you probably know we rarely disagree and I highly respect the work you're doing. If I really understood your concern, maybe I'd also support your proposed change. I was only wondering, is "conversion" problematic because it implies switching from a previous faith? If so, one of the common definitions (from WordNet): "a spiritual enlightenment causing a person to lead a new life [syn: {rebirth}, {spiritual rebirth}]"... Or is the issue the claim that he became "Christian", with the various meanings it may have? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it is unclear to me when the response to an altar call is actually a conversion. Craig claims he was an atheist in his childhood, but I find no evidence that his parents raised him outside of the Christian faith. jps (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
What does "alter call" mean anyway, is it another version of "born-again"? (I'm following the discussion at DRN). -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, essentially. An "altar call" is an event that, as far as I can tell, was developed most famously at camp revivals (Elmer Gantry-styles) where, during most Conservative Evangelical Services (or random events, really) the leader will give the cliff-notes version of the salvation-by-grace-alone message to the audience and then proceed to ask if there is anyone who is not "saved"? At that point, they will usually ask for those who feel so compelled to step forward where they will pray some version of the sinner's prayer, have hands laid upon them, and so forth. This type of strict event is the point that most conservative Christians will describe as "letting Jesus into their heart" or somesuch. This is the kind of event Craig is describing. It is a type of conversion experience for some, but there are many people who heed altar calls multiple times in their lives. Maybe they don't always "stick". jps (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. American christianity is a minefield of obfuscation to me. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Precisely this. Many Europeans, for example, were historically born Christian because that was the state religion. I think the idea of religious identity being a choice is a famous American conceit. jps (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Weird. I thought "conversion" was petty theft or high crimes and misdemeanors against chepitel (whether it be IP or OP). In this regard, I noticed that the bit in the entry about him taking his Kalam Cosmological Argument from a philosophy prof in Pine, Louisiana was in fact itself most likely taken from without acknowledgement. (The current reference cited for the "Hackett" claim doesn't talk about Hackett.) Perhaps oddly, the common sense atheism site is not seen as being as canonical (§) as, say, the Vatican (§), or the Church of LDS § on en-wiki. Just curious, do you think there are a lot of these "converted IP" citations from "common sense atheist" on 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that's the actual origin. It seems more likely that commonsenseatheism took their description from elsewhere. Why do you think that this is what happened in this article? jps (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, what would you think of "embraced"? In any case, this explains to me why even a promotional-sounding quote was proposed, it describes a personal experience. I was raised as a JW and pressured as a teen to officially join via baptism (they don't baptize at birth, it's a "conscious" life dedication ceremony). I long knew that I didn't want to, that it couldn't be "The Truth" and feared the associated legal contract with the organization that cannot be reversed with dignity (the baptized who formally leave or are rejected get publicly announced and get shunned, including by family). At around 16, still unbaptized, I stopped attending all activities (the softer way to leave) but also had to leave the house at 18, considered a bad example to my younger brothers/sisters by dating a gf, working full-time and doing music, instead of preaching. "Satanic decrepitude and pride in man's intellect!" Ultimately they all left anyway, except my parents, but one brother eventually returned. —PaleoNeonate – 23:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit frustrating because right now I cannot get a block of editors to recognize that we are dealing with Craig's opinion rather than an objective fact. I think it is important that reader know that Craig's testimony is that he converted at age sixteen. I do not understand why other editors are hesitant to try to attribute this point to him rather than writing in Wikipedia's voice. WP:ASF seems clear on the subject to me. jps (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
From where I'm sitting, Lane "converted" to something at age sixteen. Here in the kennel, conversion implies he converted from something to something else. It appears that he was a christian before his conversion, to being a christian. I'm still confused here, and glad I'm not at DRN. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
He says he was an atheist before he converted. This is not outside the realm of possibility, but my question would be whether he was a professed atheist (how was this perceived within his Peoria, IL household?) or was it of the closet variety. Conversion stories are interesting, but they are rarely verifiable. jps (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Oddly, it seems some think that attributing the conversion story to Craig is akin to casting doubt as to whether he is really a Christian! I am not sure how it has gotten to the point where testimony has become disconfirming when explaining that it is the believer who gives it. I am duly perplexed. jps (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for helping me to see the light, have been struggling for a while with Phillip E. Johnson's "conversion" described as "became a Christian", which seemed odd as by his own account he'd been raised lukewarm Christian, become nominally agnostic and then had a religious epiphany. Have checked the source and it's more specific, so edited accordingly. A lot more to do, but am being cautious and building up info – interesting how he's often shown as the "father of ID" when he only joined in after Thaxton had already been a "prime mover" for years, and had introduced the term. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I figure that the others want to move on, so maybe it's better to follow up here. You're now saying that 'become a Christian' is univocal, and that Craig did become a Christian at 16. I agree with that. But you're also contending, if I'm following, that some (appropriately substantial number?) of people who are not closely connected to Christianity are likely to misunderstand our article when we write that Craig became a Christian at 16. Is that correct? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it univocal? Well, in the context of people who are from Craig's tradition, I would argue that it is... though that may not be quite univocal universal (the other sort of UU?)? Anyway, yes, there is an issue that people who do not follow Evangelical Christianity may not understand what this conversion idea is supposed to be. See the point about Phillip Johnson above. It's a question of helping the reader understand. jps (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, so you don't think that it is univocal in English. Or maybe you're not sure? Nevermind. How does attributing the claim to Craig help the reader understand? That's what you were calling for, remember? Normally people call for attribution when they are worried about whether the claim is true, or they think it is too controversial to state in Wikipedia's voice. It isn't going to help people understand what he means by 'became a Christian' to attribute the claim to him, though. So I don't see why that's what you were calling for if "helping the reader understand" was your concern all along. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Might I suggest we move on from this please. Resolving the dispute around the content is my job here - so let’s keep the conversation centralised please. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Fine with me. I defer to the expertise of the moderator. It's hard to tell whether my interlocutor was being forthright anyway. I would say that attribution doesn't have to be an rhetorical means to say a statement is controversial, though I understand that Wikipedia politics often act like this is the only justification. (See above.) jps (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)