Revision as of 23:36, 10 July 2012

The Talk Page...

Notes for others

• See User:Crews_Giles/ChristianMysticism_1 for archived work on Christian Mysticism's major revision. A bit outdated, but useful to keep due to significant and frequent vandalism on that article.
• The Yellowstone (steamboat) article was begun here but has since gone live.
• Draft of new article for User:Crews_Giles/Antonio_Gaona
• Draft of new section for Texas Revolution Section: User:Crews_Giles/After_San_Jacinto
• Archived items from this Talk Page are found here:

• March 2011 through February 2012: User talk:Crews Giles/Archive 1

The Talk

Help with Texan/Texian consensus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ""Texan" versus "Texian"". Thank you.

The above items was closed soon after opening in lieu of the suggested RfC (see next item, below). --cregil (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Texan or Texian? discussions

In articles related to the History of Texas, including the , there is a history of a few editors changing all uses of the word, "Texan" to "Texian."

I am not picking on anyone.

I begin and end with the assumption that such editors firmly believe that the word "Texian" was used exclusively in certain eras; but those editors are mistaken. Texan and Texian were used side-by-side during that time, and there is ample evidence to support the use of both.

Other editors have made the changes under the valid argument that such articles ought to be consistent throughout, but again, the changes, so far, have been to remove the word Texan in preference for Texian.

• My American Heritage Dictionary, which, the last I heard, is the standard of the English Language in the United States (albeit my copy is abridged) does not even include the word, Texian. To be fair, it also does not include the word, Texan.
• None of our spell-checkers on our web browsers or word processors contain the word unless we have manually added it.
• Google search asks if you meant Texan and, by default, lists all instances of both.

The preferred term, then, is self-evident, but I admit that Texian ought to be allowed as interchangeable with Texan-- just not to the exclusion of Texan. I believe the burden is upon those who believe otherwise to justify.

I also dislike the new practice found outside of Misplaced Pages to follow with the Latin abbreviation for "as it was written" , as, "...Texian ... ." Latin editorial abbreviations are not allowed on Misplaced Pages, and for most readers, the erroneous connotation is taken that the word was misspelled.

But, to remove all instances of Texan and replace them with Texian is edit warring, and we do not want to do that. Several of the effected articles' Talk Pages have included discussions, but in none has a consensus been achieved.

I am certain and clear that the evidence supports the use of either; but that Texan is the modern, preferred, and, an equally historically-accurate term. Yet, I am not going to war over it-- that is, I am not going to revert edits, or change original contributions which use either-- as has been done by others.

I have been participating in the various Talk Page discussions on the issue. Finding no consensus, but spurred (pardon my idiom) by more edits removing Texan from the article and replacing with Texian, and the one-sided edit war (skirmish, really) prompted me to attempt consensus through the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. An administrator, there, quickly closed that attempt, asking that a RfC be created instead.

This has been done. The RfC was placed on the Talk Page of the Texas Revolution article because that page already contained the most thorough discussion of all the articles.

Please go there: ]

--cregil (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Denialism

I have a question for you on the ID talk page. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Answered, there. Implicit in my answer is that we are NOT discussing whether or not ID is a valid hypothesis, but whether those who support the concept, do so because they are in denial. Common sense suggests interpretation of data, authorities and ideological bias is far more likely to be the source of either opposition or support of the idea.

That I am not willing to tar the ID supporters with the term, "denialism," is in no way a voice of support of the concept of ID as the article suggests at least some hold it. I believe in a 14.5 billion year old universe, evolution, and that dinosaurs lived and became extinct before humans walked the earth. I also believe in God, Creator of Heaven and Earth.

That the Fundamentalists claim one cannot believe in an old universe and evolution and also believe in God is a testament to the shallowness of their faith in comparison to the rich, complex, and (above all), reasonable faith I was offered and took as my own.

All scientific truths are reasonable, even if not fully understood (e.g., quantum mechanics), and so simply believing in a God who is also Creator will always confirm, for them, the intelligence of that Creator. I do not understand how the ID supporters see the expected reasonableness of scientific discovery as proof of God, but that they do does not require me to presume "denial" as the common root source of their interpretation of the evidence. --cregil (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked you a serious question in good faith. I would have appreciated a less insulting answer. Please remember that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policy. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Give it rest. I'm not a schoolboy. Any insult you perceived is of your imagination and/or a failure to appreciate irony-- said irony having nothing at all to do with you in the first place. Do I really need to spell it out for you? Seriously? If you are truly confused, I will spell it out, but must I?

I could have said, "Look, buddy. I am not naive. The article screams' POV Violation, cherry picking, and an agenda to disparage."

Cherry picking: The article is heavily weighted toward the movement and not the concept, and from the comments on Talk, appears to be taken by many to be only about the movement. The movement is the silliness.

The other perspectives (from the philosophical to the metaphysical) are relegated to a tiny place in the article which never develops, and from there, the article focuses on the movement-- and that movement is easily dismissed as poppycock by a reasoning mind. Thus the suspicion of an intent to disparage is raised.

You know as well as I do that tagging it with "denialism" will eventually lead to the mention of those such as Aquinas and Gray being removed as not relevant to the discussion, and so the silencing of the reasonable creationists will have been completed. Right? You know I am.

I have worked for political campaigns, marketing campaigns and ad copy. I have rejected the temptation to "get my shots in" as a newspaper reporter, getting myself out of the way so that the best objectivity I could muster showed. It takes discipline and a loathing of one's own agenda because you know how dishonest that is from the other side.

So is that silencing of any reasonable opponent your own agenda, or were you simply not aware that is how things work out in the real world? I don't like it, and I won't do it. Will you? Do you? Even if you do, I still win-- because I have not only reason, but I have truth, and where truth has yet to be discovered, an open mind.

Go and do likewise. --cregil (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It's decidedly uncivil to waste people's time by expounding on a subject about which you know almost nothing. You seem to have no hesitation to waste other people's time. It's obvious that you are not a schoolboy - you obviously believe that you know everything and all the rest of us, who have actually spent years developing a knowledge of the subject matter, know nothing.

Had you bothered to read the article, you'd have realised that it clearly says that it is about the DI-linked form of ID. Why? For one, it's a matter of focus - if we try to cover every possible use of a term, we'd end up with hopelessly unfocused articles...one that's even longer than this one. And it's a matter of what we can reliably source. All this would be clear if you stopped to consider that other people might know something you didn't.

If you believe that the article "screams" POV, then why not take on the article? It has been an FA for 5 years and has gone through FAR twice. It represents sources fairly, and in a balanced way. And as a regular target for True Believers who are convinced that it's all a "Darwinian conspiracy" it must be of the highest standard because even the smallest things get latched upon and debated at length. Again, you'd know that if you bothered to learn a little about the topic.

The "concept" of ID is vaporware. They have been promising great breakthroughs for decades, but they have produced almost nothing of substance. They claim ID is science but they have produced no science. They won't publish, but they will travel to churches and mislead people with stuff that they know has been disproven. And no, I'm not out to silence them - I find them fascinating. I've seen most of the leading figures speak. I've had quite pleasant conversations with several of them. Like any people, some are nice, and some are jerks. Sadly, they've jumped the shark - the YECs are dominant once again. And quite honestly, they don't interest me. So here I am with a decade invested in getting to know all I can about a movement that's not headed anywhere.

"Silencing any reasonable opponent"...spoken like someone with real political experience. It goes well with the forcefully fact-free pronouncements you made on the talk page. We aren't supposed to have "opponents" here - you would do well to stop assuming that people are your enemies just because they disagree with you. As for your claims that you have reason and truth on your side - if you have reason on your side, why not use it, rather than resorting to the tactics on politicians? As for truth...I'm always inclined to give someone with an MDiv more than a fair shake. Your claims about truth are either laughable, or just sad. It's people like you that make this place such a frustrating hobby. No interest in playing by "the rules", no concern for the time others put into trying to build an encyclopaedia. Sourcing is irrelevant. And the knowledge base that others have spent years building up? Irrelevant, because you know the TRUTH. WP:V be damned. Guettarda (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And just to be clear - I have no disagreement with the "creationist" who believes in divine creation. I disagree with the type of creationist who rejects the scientific evidence of evolution...and that has become the dominant usage of the word, even though the other term is far older and far more respectable. I have no disagreement with those who believe in theistic evolution, or deistic evolution. I do disagree with the people who claim that the hand of God in evolution can be demonstrated scientifically, the proponents of intelligent design, because I believe that their empirical claims are untenable. But that would be nothing more than a private complaint if it weren't for their campaign to "intelligent design" - their specific theology - taught in schools as science. And it's not that I (necessarily) have a problem with religion in the classroom. But I have no interest in silencing them. Nor am I here to silence people I disagree with - there are people I disagree with far more strenuously than I do the IDists... I feel far more strongly about HIV denial, having seen people I know die of AIDS. I feel far more strongly about Holocaust denial. I feel far more strongly about local politicians engaging in what I perceive to be hate speech about LGBT people and illegal immigrants, and about neo-Nazis and the KKK....these are groups whose demise I would be happy to see. But I don't edit those articles because they don't interest me. But rather than learn anything of the facts, all you seek to do is smear me, discredit me, simply because I called you out on the nonsense you were writing. Nice work. Guettarda (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You are very passionate about this, and taking it personally.

The fact remains that Denialism may be appropriate for tagging the article on the movement, but not for the concept of ID. The long history of believing in a Creator and implicitness of ID to be found in nature is unrelated to the movement and its political motives.

There is a page specifically for the movement. The discussion of denialism belongs there.--cregil (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Impossible to have tea with

I see that DrMargi is now claiming that you are impossible as well! But perhaps I am inadvertaently putting words in her mouth. It's all rather ironic as I have never seen any situation in which anyone has assumed bad faith with opposing suggestions and viewpoints as much as this. Thanks for your input at Talk:Tea (meal) and attempts to try to seek reasonable compromise and work toward consensus. Njsustain (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha! and Yes! The passion of the discussion amuses me. It seems like so little a thing, that I am usually grinning whenever I am corresponding on the matter.

Post or Martin, I don't recall, stated something to the effect that the best of manners are used to prevent those with lesser social aptitudes from being embarrassed. I think, perhaps, the article hit just such a nerve with one or two editors. Miss Manners, blaming the hotels, is, therefore, being gracious. The misuse of the term is ignorance --forgivable ignorance. Unscrupulous, perhaps, in that the hotels may intentionally misuse the word, conceding to the perceived ignorance of their clientele.

Now, we shall see if we can, all of us, draw on our own scruples and resolve this! --cregil (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I thought I posted something yesterday here to the affect of "Yes, it's amazing what impassions people. Hopefully a compromise can be reached, etc." Well, obviously some people just refuse to compromise. I see exactly what is happening with Dr. Margi, but won't elaborate as I don't want to be accused of personal attacks. Let's just say I think there's some wet ink on her wall. Thanks for your efforts and for bringing some humor to the discussion. I see nothing else to do at this point other than make sure no one sneaks any unsourced information about "high" tea in the article. There must be something out there about "high" tea at 4:20 though. hmmm.... Njsustain (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You did post that here-- as I read it last night. This morning, my watchlist shows your addition, above, as "Undid revision 485814328 by Njsustain (talk.)" Also saw, on the article's talk page, that you humbled yourself by admitting bagged, instead of loose, tea used. My mug in which I steeped my bag of tea is decorated with scenes from Texas' San Jacinto Battleground-- a blending of my mother's Anglican heritage and my father's Scotch-Irish Texas pioneer heritage: A practical expression of how our American culture works! 4:20? --cregil (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, 420 is the popular number associated with marijuana, and hence the time 4:20 being popular for smoking (i.e. "high" tea). I'm not sure how I ended up doing an undo during my edit. Must have simply hit the wrong link. I never buy bagged tea but it always seems to come my way via gifts from relatives, so I actually rarely get to use my teapot and loose tea lately. I liked your comment about misconception not being the basis for inclusion. If that were the case, the article on libraries would have "liberry" as an alternate pronunciation. I don't think any proposals will be acceptable to certain people so I'm not going to involve myself any longer, so long as no incorrect unsourced information is slid back into the article. Njsustain (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Four-twenty-- I had no idea! Personally, my mind is on three o'clock when I can break the Good Friday fast. At present, I am waiting for my coffee order to arrive while the smell of hamburger orders fill the air in the little place where I have landed within walking distance of the Church. Ah... just as I type, fresh coffee, wonderful aroma-- not that your 4:20 concept does not have its own temptation! --cregil (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Type 420 into google and the results are all about pot. There's even a 420 dating site. Who knew? Anyway, while fasting I think having "high" tea in that sense would be counterproductive. Meanwhile, I think I'm going to move to California and open up a tea house called the "high" tea cafe, and cater to hippy counterculture. Will that make me an expert qualified to espouse on the American terminology? BTW you may notice teenagers giggling more than usual on the upcoming April 20th, just from the idea that it is "weed day." Njsustain (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Big problem

I was hoping it wouldn't come to this. The US was not in the war but Americans were (The US gov did support the rebels though), which is why I named the template "Mexican-American wars" instead of "Wars between the US and Mexico," or something like that. I created the template to link together all of the armed conflicts (wars, rebellions, so on) between Americans and Mexicans, not just the US and Mexico. Besides, the Texas Republic was little more than a US puppet state. I will be adding the template again for said reasons.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights

Is Uninvolved editor responding to RfC. in reference to me? If so, I suggest removing it. My opinion is worth just as much as anyone else whether I've participated on that article or not.--v/r - TP 18:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for taking care of that.--v/r - TP 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was that bullet-point style of your agreement that made the indent of my reply appear to be merely a continuation of your comment, so I moved my self-identifying tag to within the first line of my comment. By-the-Way, "Uninvolved editors" are the sought-after opinions of an RfC; many, such as me, begin our comments, when in response to an RfC that way. You may wish to declare your status as uninvolved for that reason.cregil (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally in arguments like this, the involved parties know who each other are and the closing admin is going to weigh the arguments rather than the status of the editors.--v/r - TP 23:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)