Talk:Atheism/Archive 16

In case anyone is still interested in these:
 * Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution version of article
 * Talk:Atheism/DR Dispute Resolution talk page

3 definitions
How about we have three major definitions:


 * 1) Disbelief in the Abrahamic God.
 * 2) Belief that there are no gods.
 * 3) Lack of belief in any gods.

After all, there are those who think atheism is disbelief in their Hebrew God, and that's a POV to cover, and then there are those who accept the other two definitions, which are pretty distinct. And there will be no need to quibble over "God or gods", since in definitions 2 and 3, there is no distinction. --Yath 13:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Why single out the Abrahamic God? If we use BMs mention of some people use it to refer to being atheist in respect to a single god, then we've already got this covered for ALL religions considering nonbelievers to be "atheists". User:Titanium Dragon (sig added by [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC))


 * I also don't like the emphasis on abrahamic, but think your on the right track. Many people (the pagan romans for example) use the term "atheist" to describe the rejection of their Deity. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yup if it's right to give any specific god mention, then all gods should get a mention. This hardly seems necessary or indeed practical. Giving any specific god, such as the Abrahamic god.....which is what many think of when they refer to God, its own catagory, would make the article biased, even if there was agreement that the Christian, Jewish and Islamic God is one and the same thing (which there isn&#8217;t). Anyway generic atheism does not single out any specific deity to give special preference to be without belief in (weak) or to assert the non existence of (strong), how can it, as soon as you believe in one god you are no longer an Atheist ! --Nick-in-South-Africa 14:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, how about 1. Disbelief in a specific deity. I'm still trying to nail down what people mean when they say "God is not a god". (I'm pretty sure they don't mean "He's not just any god because he really exists .") --Yath 13:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC).


 * God is not a god doesn't even imply that gods don't exist, it meerely distingusihes between the anthropomorhic deities we are all familiar w from greek mythology and other polytheisms, and the superlatitive "omni" God, a being possessed of infinite attributes. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The "omni" God is still a god though, by its very definition. Being anthropomorphic (or even having form) is not a prerequisite of being considered a (lower case) god, at least from what I learned in mythology. I cannot think of any scholar who would say the "omni" God is not a god, and would be interested in seeing any resources which showed a scholar making a distinction and saying the former is not among the latter. Titanium Dragon 13:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Not really. The idea that God is not a god -- that is, God is not a being alongside other beings, supernatural or otherwise -- is quite common in Hinduism and more esoteric/philosophical forms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.    Some of the people who believe in God conceived thus would deny the existence of all "gods" thinking of them only as symbols.   Defining atheism as the "denial of gods" defines certain believers in "God" as atheists, since they don't believe in "gods", any more than they believe in ghosts and other supernatural beings.   This is one reason, perhaps, why you see Sam so determined to have atheism defined as "denial of God".   Otherwise, you define him as an atheist, in his view.  --BM 15:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But if God-with-a-capitol-G is not a god-with-a-lower-case-g, then an atheist does not by necessity disbelieve in them, as I explained below. If it is a philisophical construct as opposed to an actual deity, then an athiest (one who does not believe in deities) does not by definition disbelieve in God-with-an-upper-case-G, because God-with-an-upper-case-G is not a deity under that viewpoint. If Sam in fact does not think of God-with-an-upper-case-G as a deity, then by some people's definition he would in fact be an atheist of sorts, and it would be incorrect to say "God or gods" in the article because of it. As far as I can tell, there are two possibilities:


 * God-with-a-capital-G is a deity, and therefore falls under the words "gods" and "deities" and doesn't need to be specifically included.


 * God-with-a-capital-G is not a deity, and therefore does not fall under the words "gods" and "dieties" and shouldn't be included because atheists only by definition not believe in gods/deities, not philisophical concepts.


 * In either case, I don't see why God-with-an-upper-case-G should be included. Titanium Dragon 15:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Previous incarnations of the article have mentioned the idea that "atheism" has often been used in the past by believers in a particular god or pantheon to label those who disbelieve or deny that particular god or pantheon (who are atheists 'with respect to' that god or pantheon, to use the phrase from the article).  For example, Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenians for "atheism" although he clearly did not deny the existence of all gods, having his own religious ideas.  I think something in this vein should be mentioned, although I don't think it is any longer a sufficiently common meaning to be in the introductory sentence. --BM 13:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Re-reading the whole of the article, I noticed that the polemical section actually already contained (and has contained for some time) this very definition. I deleted the redundant section from the section concerning strong and weak atheism. If you think this was wrong... well, it certainly needs to be in the article somewhere, but it should all be in one place, and is probably more appropriately placed under the polemical section than in the section distinguishing between strong and weak atheism. Titanium Dragon 14:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Last Sentence of Header
The current header reads as follows:


 * Atheism is popularly known as the denial of the existence of gods and alternatively as the condition of being without theistic beliefs. These different positions diverged from the original meaning, "without theism", due to interpretations of the a- prefix as either "not" or "without". The issues concerning self-identification and categorization as an atheist are complex as both involve adoption of the former definition, the latter definition, both, or a variation of either of the two.

The last sentence seems a bit extraneous to me. Though it is undoubtedly important, I am not sure if it is quite so important as to belong in the header - we already have two definitions, and it seems a bit redundant. Moreover, it is awkward. Is there a reason this final sentence is in there? It doesn't really seem to add anything to the header to me, but I don't want to delete it unilaterrally as the header seems to be one of those things which has been a cause of reversion. Titanium Dragon 13:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, self identification should to my mind be dealt with in the article's body, maybe even in its own section. --Nick-in-South-Africa 14:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Repeat of the problems with the "The Types of atheism" section
I refer those interested to my original points on this topic here:

Talk:Atheism

Someone still insists making mis-characterizing statements in the article over the controversy between weak and strong atheism, implying that the controversy is wide-spread. It is not. It is certainly not at university academic levels and above. As I've posted here many times before, many, if not most, credible, neutral academic reference sources use, or at least present, the broad definition (weak atheism) prominently. Hence, it is not just weak atheists who make the distinction and use the weak atheism definition, and the article cannot make that assertion. Is it only theists who insist that all atheism is the denial of God/gods? That is a much easier argument to make.

I'm editing this paragraph yet again to remove biased characterizations and better reflect the nature and reality of the controversy, which again I remind everyone is limited to only some people.

If this intractable someone continues to insist that only weak atheists make the distinction and thus creating the controversy, then for balance we should mention that it is largely theists who insist that the strong atheism definition is the only correct definition; controversy implies two sides, and balance requires identification of both:

"The distinction between strong and weak atheism is controversial. Some, primarily weak atheists, define atheism broadly... Others, primarily theists, define atheism narrowly..."

We should consider a adding a section to the article outlining the controversy, perhaps.--FeloniousMonk 18:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

God or gods
Titanium Dragon replaced "God or gods" with gods or deities. Please understand that God is not considered a god or deity by some, and that for these people, denying "gods" or "deities", is not the same as denying "God or gods". It may seem dumb to you, but it contributes to the stability of the article to leave references to "God or gods" alone. --BM 14:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If God is not a god or deity then an atheist doesn't necessarily disbelieve in it, because the definition of atheist is "someone who does not believe in deities". If "God" (with a capitol G) is not a deity, then an atheist doesn't necessarily not believe in it. Just because many atheists are irreligious does not mean all of them are, and thus theoretically if you define "God" not to be a deity then some atheists might well believe in the concept. Titanium Dragon 15:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In fact, come to think of it, I actually know a few "atheists" (who do not believe in any deities) to believe in the concept which Sam seems to be referring to (the concept of some great philisophical whatever/all of creation/Force-like conceptish thing), though they do not refer to it using the word "God" in particular, they seem to be addressing the same concept, which would rather imply to me that, if God is defined to mean such, we shouldn't say atheists do not believe in it. After all, I believe we have established atheists do not believe in gods, though whether they actively deny it or passively just don't believe in them is another matter. Titanium Dragon 15:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, if any specific entity is not a god then it is not the subject of atheism, because atheism relates to being without belief (weak) or actively asserting the non existence of (strong) all and any gods, to mention any specific god such as Allah, Yahweh, Thor, Zeus, Zaroester, Shiva, Granesh, Poseidon etc is POV unless we list them all. If there is some entity imaginary or real known as God that is not a god then a Wikipedia article is no doubt warranted on it and there should be a disambiguation page on God to separate it. The atheism article should perhaps contain within its body reference to the fact that atheism has no views on this specific 'God' entity.--Nick-in-South-Africa 15:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basically, it is the idea of pantheism (or at least related to it), which is sort of ambigously defined and whether it is a theistic or atheistic view depends on your idea of what constitutes a deity. But if you define "God" as being the universe itself, and define atheists as not believing in "God or gods", then basically the only athiests that really exist are nilhists, who believe nothing really exists. Titanium Dragon 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I would venture the guess that most people, including atheists, are not aware of the philosophical/esoteric definition of God. For those people, atheism is the denial of deities or gods as supernatural beings, including the god of monotheism, "God" in English.    But of those people who are aware of the esoteric definition, they don't call themselves atheists if they revere God, esoterically defined. Of atheists aware of the esoteric definition, it is hard to say what they make of it in general.  It doesn't make sense to say this God does not "exist", because this God is defined as Existence, Being itself, etc and one does not say that Existence exists or does not exist.    An atheist aware of this concept of God will most probably have a variety of objections to it, including that it is incomprehensible, bad metaphysics, or that theists can't get from their definition to a conscious God interacting intentionally with the Universe without committing logical errors, and if they can't, then their "God" is no more than a somewhat idiosyncratic redefinition of words.  Right now I don't have a good idea about how to deal with this in the article.  It seems like a fairly advanced topic. --BM 15:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I was aware of it, but I don't refer to it as "God" and do not think it is really a good idea to do so because it is confusing. Really I don't consider the concept to really be a worthwhile one to begin with simply because it is so vauge as to be virtually meaningless, but it is interesting when it is more pinned down as it is in some belief systems. An irreligious atheist will likely have many objections to it, but a religious one might not. If you think about it, wouldn't a Jedi (that is, a member of the Jedi religion) be an atheist (they don't believe in any deities) but more or less believe in this conception of "God" with their belief in the Force? Titanium Dragon 15:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In the Star Wars world, The Force might be a supernatural force pervading the universe, like chi, which the Jedi are able to manipulate.   But that is just guessing, since I don't think Lucas and the other SW writers are very clear on what The Force is supposed to be.  Though supernatural, The Force isn't a deity, and therefore isn't denied by atheism, although most atheists will deny it for the same reasons they deny deities.  "The Force" is not similar to the esoteric concept of God.   --BM 16:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The concept of God as something completely other than a deity is not some obscure, out of the ordinary theory. A great many Hindu's, Jews, Muslims, and Christians believe this, and refer to this entity as God. Many Buddhists also believe in this concept (especially The Ultimate) but usually do not refer to it as God. There is also the concept of the negative theology, which is especially inclusive of people who today call themselves "atheists". My definition of atheism is very different from (I assume) pretty much all of you, altho Titanium Dragon seems to be beginning to understand it. For me, true atheism is the rejection of everything, Nihilism, satanism, amalek. That is why I find the concept of "weak" and "strong" atheism so upsetting. By these horrible terms, I would be a weak atheist in regards to many things. Of course I violently reject any such labeling, but if we are to accept these terms, I would be so labeled. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam, I really don't know from where the 'weak/strong' terminology comes from and, also, I don't like it. But, again, it's used and we must accept it. About 'god v/s God', I'd use 'deity' or 'divinity' for this is a kind of 'universal' and neutral term accepted by both theists and atheists. If we use 'God', some may think we're talking about the Jewish/Christian God (although muslims also use 'God' for Allah) and if we use 'god(s)', it can be interpreted as the pagan greek, roman or germanic gods. --Neigel von Teighen 17:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem w that reasoning is that many, if not most people are refering to this very same universal when they say "God". I'm not sure how much you know about theology, metaphysics, theosophy, etc.., but a review of Pantheism and Panentheism would probably help alot, if your not well versed in these concepts. the summary is: many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, Sikhs, Jains, etc... worship this very same, singular, infinite God. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We should not assume what "many, if not most people" think. To do so is to spoon feed them again. God/gods covers all the bases for all readers, and should be used exclusively in the article.--FeloniousMonk 18:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Using simple deductive reasoning (which is admittedly in some ways over-simplifies), if one is not a theist, then one must be an atheist. How one comes to not accept theistic belief dictates what sort of atheist one is. Regardless of the terms, theist/atheist, weak/strong atheism, implicit/explicit atheism, the concepts are natural and arise from basic deductive logic.--FeloniousMonk 18:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That might make sense if your premise is that God doesn't exist. if God does exist, you can't be apart from him w/o rejecting him, and even then he is still always with you. Your making the same mistake catholics did w infant baptism, attempting to claim converts before they can make a reasoned descision. Nobody is an atheists until they have consciously rejected God. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 19:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is specious. So then it follows everybody is a theist until they consciously reject God. That is the natural conclusion to your logic. Nobody can be a theist until they have chosen to believe in God or gods. Again, using the most simple of logic and terms, a person is either a theist or an atheist. Your logic only makes sense to those who also assume god or gods exist, and so far, there's no universally compelling evidence that they do.--FeloniousMonk 19:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what true atheism is (as opposed to the false atheism that we are writing an article about, I presume). And therefore I don't begin to understand how true atheism is the rejection of everything, and equivalent to nihilism, satanism, or amalek (whatever that might be). You need to be a good deal less enigmatic in your comments if you want other people to understand your POV as one which should be reflected somehow in the article. --BM 17:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't want my POV in the article, that would be original research, POV, etc... I was just letting you know where I'm coming from here in the talk. What I want in the article is NPOV, and factual accuracy. Failing to adress the differences of definition of God and god serves noone, except those seeking to promote divisiveness and a swelling in the ranks of atheism. For example, I had a recent insightful conversation. My boy said that he thinks most "atheists" are simply rejecting a false god, such as the god of calvinism, rather than the real God who is all. I think this is likely true, and its quite funny, since I also reject the god of calvinism! How to explain it better, I don't know, but I;ll keep trying if need be ;) Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If what you are looking for is a neutral point of view, why do you insist upon the capitalised 'God' instead of the far more neutral term, 'deitie(s)', and why should there be any differentiation between the terms 'gods' and 'God'? It seems to me that you are trying to give on particular god (no doubt the one you happen to believe in) a more prominent placing than all other gods. The term 'deity' incorporates every single god that has ever existed without giving priority to any particular god or godess, including the one that you very clearly happen to believe in. You clearly have a very aggresively anti-atheistic agenda, and have constantly edited the article in the past to reflect this. The term 'deities' is more neutral than the term 'God or gods', and as a result of this, I have once again edited the article to a genuinely more neutral point of view.

Aaarrrggh

I've added a paragraph which I think describes Sam's POV, which is by no means an unusual one. --BM 14:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that BM, and I have no problems whatsoever with the paragraph you added. It states the position, I think it does so quite fairly, and it does so in an informative and nonjudgemental manner. Mentioning and describing a position that exists as you have done is not the same as presenting the article from that position, as I believe was the case prior to these changes. The article does at least appear to be finally taking shape - I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this.

Aaarrrggh 15:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too many main headers
I think that the article organization is very cluttered and there are too many headings for each section that don't make sense together. You can see what I mean:


 * 1) Types of atheism
 * 2) Morality
 * 3) Persecution
 * 4) In Communism, Marxism and the Cold War
 * 5) Contemporary atheism
 * 6) Statistics
 * 7) Polemical usage
 * 8) Atheistic religious organizations
 * 9) Religious views of atheism
 * 10) Judaism
 * 11) See also
 * 12) External links
 * 13) References

There is no pattern, no "regular article" sort of approach, and Atheism covers many things, history, current events, influences and so forth. There are way too many long headers that focus on specific things for an article of this type. I tried rearranging it, but what I'm suggesting would require sections to be broken down and moved around. Does anyone agree that it isn't organized well? Ambush Commander 21:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is in pretty sorry shape, but thats due to the sort of squabbling which is likely to interfere w you repairing it. I agree w you generally, however, at least in theory. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 22:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in general. It just got unprotected yesterday, and it is pretty hard at present to make large changes since each small change is pretty tentative while people see if they have consensus. --BM 22:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV Patrol
This edit is riddled with bad edits and POV-pushing. I think it's ok to revert something this bad on sight, hint hint.

Specifically:


 * Strong atheism, also known as explicit atheism or positive atheism, is the acknowledgement that there is absolutely no basis in rational thought, and no need, for the god(s) or the devil(s).

This makes it sound like Wikipedia has concluded that there's no god.


 * Atheism prescribes an anthropomorphic orientation of values.

This isn't POV-pushing so much as just being plain wrong. I'm glad someone did change this fairly quickly.

Since people started making minor edits after this large, bad edit, we now have several little problems needing to be fixed, but a revert would destroy some good edits that followed.

In case I'm not making myself clear, it should have been reverted. Let's insist on people using the talk page a little more. Apparently, this article is just a little too attractive to people who are clueless or POV-pushing, and I'm not referring to anyone who has participated in the discussion here. --Yath 00:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I largely rewrote the offending edit, perhaps I should have just reverted it, my apologies. Feel free to revert my rewiting of it.


 * 207.189.131.233 seems to be a one of our resident POV warriors here just going anon, judging by the tone and verbiage. No points given for guessing who.--FeloniousMonk 00:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that something needed to be done after the anon edit, Felonious, but you seem to have lost the "lack of evidence" versus "a priori argument from contradictory attributes" content that we had a bit earlier by simply bringing in the second clause ending in "rational". I'm not going to work on it tonight, but maybe tomorrow, although perhaps you will beat me to it again. --BM 01:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me
I have been unblocked from my wrongful blocking Wikipedia:Administrator%27s_noticeboard#Accusation_of_breaking_the_revert_rule_against_Sam_Spade, but am rather disturbed, and won't be editing here for sometime. Good luck, and God be with you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I didn't realize you had been blocked. It wasn't because of this article, surely? I don't think you violated the three-revert rule yesterday. Who said you did? Anyway, I see you added the NPOV Dispute header again. Would you mind saying why? Was it because of "god or Gods" being replaced by deities? If so, I thought the paragraph I added dealt with that issue. To be honest, it gets tiresome constantly wrangling over "God" versus "god" or "deity", "gods" versus "God or gods", etc. People are going to come along all the time and change "God or gods" to "gods" or "deities", thinking it is just making the text smoother and less clunky, and not realizing that anyone would object to God being subsumed under "deities" or "gods". You have to admit that the "God is not a deity" idea is not going to occur to people and is going to strike many as bizarre. I think the better way to handle this is to deal with it directly, as I tried to do in the new paragraph. --BM 17:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was indeed due to this page, but thankfully it was reversed w concensus that it was a wrongful block. MGM seems apologetic tho, so I see no point in being angry w him about it. That said, the whole experience upset me a good deal, and I am not planning to edit this page for some time. I put the dispute header for exactly the reason you thought, and if there is concensus to remove it, thats what should be done. I darn sure won't revert it if its removed! Anyhow, good luck, happy holidays, merry X-mas (or whatever atheists celebrate ;) and goodbye. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I for one vote that we take down the dispute header as soon as possible. Aaarrrggh 17:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good luck, and Merry Christmas, Sam. By the way, this atheist's family celebrates Xmas. Tree, presents, egg nog, decorations, Santa Claus, etc. Like good atheists-to-be, the kids know that "Santa is imaginary, but that at Christmas time, we all have fun pretending that he is real." So far, neither of them know that there is any connection between any of this and Christ's birth; but, then, the oldest is five. --BM 17:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I too vote to take down the header immediately.

I'm not surprised that you were blocked, or that you were subsequently unblocked. You may not have violated the letter of the 3rr policy, but you violated its spirit by hiding your repeated reverts of language agreed upon by consensus within otherwise valid edits.

As evidenced by your recent vulgar email recently sent to me using the wikipedia email function, you seem to have a history of cynical manipulations of the policies. Your claim that "Email is not governed by wiki-policy" only means you tacitly admit your actions were an intentional cynical manipulation of a policy loophole. Considered with your creative side-stepping of the 3rr policy here, this constitutes a pattern. You seem to be quite adept at finding and exploiting policy loopholes and then claiming to be the aggrieved party; your hypocrisy here and elsewhere is a matter of record.

I note that MGM apologized to you, but he also went on to say that "the rules to include reverts hidden by useful edits in the future. There's no way to know for sure whether someone is trying to avoid the 3RR this way." Knowing your history of ignoring consensus on this very point (God vs. god), not many will buy that you weren't cynically trying to subvert the 3rr policy and consensus by hiding reverts within otherwise valid edits. Indeed, we've seen this from you time and again here, going all the way back to February 04, the archives are literally a memorial to your repeated refusal to abide with consensus and policy. Many, many editors here, past and present, share this view. Surely exploiting policy loopholes to subvert the policies must not go unacknowledged. I'm compelled to acknowledge them wherever I encounter them, including here at Talk:Atheism.

I think many recognize that the 3rr policy needs some improvement and it should extend to include reverts hidden by useful edits.--FeloniousMonk 19:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think these matters are so clear. For example, lets say an article says "A" and you think it should say "B". If all you do is keep changing it back to "B" whenever someone makes it say "A", it doesn't really matter if you achieve that through simple reverts or straight edits that achieve the same effect as a revert. You get three tries every 24 hours. But if there are other edits going on, including the case where the alleged "revert" is part of a larger edit that you do yourself, the situation becomes a lot more complex. For example, the larger edits that you do may not simply be an attempt to "hide" a revert, they might be a good faith attempt to compromise. For example, you change "A" back to "B", but you make other changes that you hope will make "B" more palatable to the A fans. Or there might have been an intervening change by you or a third party that you think indicates that "B" is now more acceptable, perhaps in combination with comments on the Talk page. The 3RR is easy to enforce when there are literally 3 reverts; that is easy to determine and it is pretty clear that someone doing that is just being insistent and/or stubborn. The 3RR says at some point you have to stop being stubborn and let someone else fight the battle for "B" (assuming there is someone). But declaring an edit to be "effectively a revert" and banning people on that basis is a lot less clear unless the effect is literally to restore the article to a prior state (like a revert) or to a state that is only trivially different from a prior state. I can't comment on past history, but the last couple of days, several people were working on the article, and I thought all of them were doing so in good faith, including Sam, and I don't believe Sam had 4 edits that restored the article to a prior state or a state only trivially different from a prior state. --BM 19:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Sam indeed had 4 edits that replaced language arrived at consensus (god/gods or diety/dieties) with his particular POV content (God/god).


 * In reverse chronological order:


 * 4:
 * 22:05, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (God or gods)
 * 21:22, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Changed to 'Deities' again. The whole point is to take away from the focus of the christian god to the more general term.)
 * 21:11, 14 Dec 2004 Ambush Commander (Let's compromise. God and Deities (Gods redirects to Deity anyway))
 * 18:52, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Deities replacing god again.)


 * 3:
 * 17:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (various, mainly God or gods)
 * 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 Titanium Dragon ("God or gods" to "gods" or "deities", save in first occurance to preserve link to God entry (otherwise is redundant, "omni" God is a god by definition); "policies" changed to "policy" (grammar))


 * 2:
 * 12:49, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (merger of my version w an appropriate contribution by andreas)
 * 12:39, 14 Dec 2004 129.59.26.46 (Changed a couple of references to "God or gods" to "gods" or "deities")


 * 1:
 * 12:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (repair)
 * 11:39, 14 Dec 2004 Adraeus (rv. BM's non-consensus-based POV edits)


 * As I said before, Sam may not have violated the letter of the 3rr policy, but he violated its spirit by exploiting a policy loophole to subvert policy.--FeloniousMonk 20:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The spirit of the policy is that we compromise rather than reverting to a previous version. I made compromise edits, and general improvements, whilst discussing on the talk page. This is to be encouraged.


 * Well, the third on your list is clearly a case where Sam was making his typical change as well as well as merging one of the changes that Andraeus had made, in what looks to me like an attempt at compromise.   You can't count that one.  I haven't looked at the others, but excluding that one makes it no more that 3.  --BM 21:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Several admins did not agree with you on that point. Compromise is what Sam removed when he changed god to God. Compromise would have been "diety." Sam removed that in numbers 4 and 2. Sorry, but Sam compromising on this point is not something supported by the record. Go ahead and spend some time checking the page history, there's no shortage of instances of Sam editing against consensus here going all the way back to February. It was even the subject of an RfC.


 * Regardless, Sam violated only the spirit of the policy, not the letter, and so he's off the hook on a technicality. Smart. Whether content reached by consensus is removed by manual editing or by reverting, the net effect is the same. The former only violates the spirit of the rule, while the latter the letter of the rule. Both violate the spirit of wikipedia. Sam is smart enough to know the difference, and apparently feckless enough to exploit it while flaunting consensus and thereby wasting all the patient efforts of good faith editors here. This very issue has already been the topic of one RfC involving Sam, which he seems to have benefited little from.--FeloniousMonk 21:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frankly I think you, FM, ought to be celebrating the victory of your harassment, rather than perpetuating it in such a manner as to compel me to remain in order to defend myself. You keep hammering away on the fact I sent you a rude email. I did. It wasn't "obscene" by my definition, which is the only thing I have denied. I stand by that email, and feel the policy is good as it is. You may want to turn the wiki into a beaurocratic nightmare by increasing regulations, but many others and I do not. Take you rhetoric and emotion driven POV to the applicable policy or Meta pages. Your shrill repetition will likely have similar effect there as here. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I find it sadly funny and ironic that you'd accuse others of harassment when you admit here it is you that is sending the insulting emails. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.


 * The page history shows clearly that you have yet to compromise on the issue of God vs. god vs. deity. Res ipsa loquitur.--FeloniousMonk 21:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW Sam, If you want me to stop discussing the vulgar email you sent me, then just offer an earnest apology on my Talk page for sending it. That's all I've ever asked for.--FeloniousMonk 21:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I sent you one email, not emails, and it was signed. Anything else your getting is not from me. How I am both smart and feckless in your estimation is beyond me, but you'll be getting no apology any time soon either way. Move on, discuss the article, not other users. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 22:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right. For accuracy's sake instead of "smart" and "feckless" I should have selected "cagey" and "dishonest."


 * Yes, there was only one vulgar, insulting email I received from you. How many have received from me? And that one email was sufficiently uncivil and insulting enough to show us your true colors. Your repeated claims of being the victim establishes you as hypocrite. And I'm sorry, but I do not abide hypocrites.


 * Do you deny the hypocrisy of you demanding an apology from MGM for performing his job in good faith, yet your refusal to make one to me after your intentionally vulgar personal insults sent to me in manner that violates the wikipedia policies and systems? Again, your hypocrisy here astounds.


 * Yes, indeed I'd like to move on and discuss the article and not other users. But when other users start sections about themselves titled "Me", where they commemorate their avoiding being banned on a technicality, it's rather difficult. When that same user makes hypocritical assertions while having been a primary source of strife and obstruction in article and the source of much incivility and insults, both on and off line, then that demands a response.


 * As long as you choose to very publicly claim to be a civil follower of the rules and only aggrieved by others all the while refusing to atone for your own recent incivility and blatant misuse of the wikipedia email system, I will continue to rightly remind of the dishonesty and hypocrisy of your claims. Since you are so proud of sending me your vulgar rant, I'm sure you'll have no objections.--FeloniousMonk 23:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)