User talk:HistoryBuff14

Links
Please quit adding links to your reviews. It violates WP:ELNO 4 and 13 as well as WP:EL. It doesn't matter if the person is aware of the Wikipedia article and "approved it". They do not own the article and Wikipedia has policies your links are violating. The biggest being conflict of interest. If you continue to spam, I will be forced to report you to administrators' noticeboard. I am sorry, but your reviews do not belong on Wikipedia. I will be going through your contributions and removing them. I appreciate you being upfront and honest about your conflict of interest though, it helps me assume good faith and I think you can contribute a lot to Wikipedia. Please do not let this discourage future contributions, just please do not put links to your own website on here anymore. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any other links than the two I already removed, so I'm going to move on and not bother you anymore. Happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Test
Just trying to learn something about Wiki proccesses. I'll delete this section presently. This is my own talk page. Thank you.

Godfather Stuff
Thanks for the response to the Solozzo query.

Here is something I thought about although it may concern the films and not the book:

In Godfather II, we see the young Vito and his friend watching the play and his friend goes on and on about how beautiful the girl is. Later, the friend is frightened to intervene when the white-suited hood holds a knife to her throat even though Vito shows his willingness to help.

Now, I don't think this bit is in the book; if it is, I have forgotten.

But here is something interesting:

A deleted scene from the movie shows the Don and his sons visiting this man as he is dying in the hospital and this is also in the book. The friend becomes the consigliere to Don Corleone. The question is, would Vito have really made a coward like this his advisor?

So if the backstage scene is not in the book, it is interesting that they chose to edit out the hospital scene since leaving it in would definitely raise this question, although the question only arises when both I and II are considered together.

Here is another thing I thought about:

When Don Corleone is speaking to the undertaker, and he says, "then your enemies would become my enemies -- and then they would fear you." I think the latter part is completely unnecessary dialog and something that the Don (or anyone else in his position) would never say. It is quite sufficient to say the thing about his enemies becoming Vito's enemies.--Jrm2007 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

--I consider myself an expert on the novel and not the movies, although I have seen all three. (Including, unfortunately, the third one in which I was very disappointed. The fault lay with the screenplay, which I thought presented a rediculous plot and called for inconsistent character development, especially in regard to Connie Corleone.)

As you allude to, the movies took liberties with the account in the novel, mostly in fairly minor ways. They eventually ran the first two movies together as a television miniseries entitled The Godfather Saga, putting the films together in chronological order. In The Godfather Saga, they included several scenes that had been cut from the released versions of the first two films simply for time reasons. The scene that had been cut from The Godfather that you refer to here (Genco’s death scene) was one of them. To my knowledge, it had only been cut for time reasons as superfluous and not integral to the plot. (Besides, your conjecture seems most unlikely because the second movie hadn’t even been thought of yet, let alone written.)

In the novel, Vito Corleone and Genco Abbandando were apparently childhood friends in Corleone, Sicily, as Vito refers to their having played bocce together as young boys. Apparently, the Abbandando family immigrated to New York City before the child Vito Corleone was forced to follow suit.

(By the way, in the novel, unlike in the second movie, it is Vito’s mother who sends him to NYC for his safety. There is no mention in the novel of Vito’s mother having also been killed by a (unnamed) mafia chief; nor is there any mention of Vito having had a brother as in the second movie.)

Once in NYC, Vito is taken in by the Abbandando family and given work in the family’s Italian grocery. Thus, there is a close bond between them as apparent life long best friends.

As I said, the movies take liberties with the novel on occasions, as this is one instance. In the novel, it is Genco’s father who seems the coward, or at least more prudent than his son, however one wants to look at it. Genco tells his father he will “take care” of Fanucci, the neighborhood Black Hand extortionist, when he extorts money from the family grocery. The father forbids it and pays Fanucci instead, eventually even firing Vito when Fanucci demands that the father hires Fanucci’s nephew instead. This fills Genco with shame and he offers to steal food from the family store to help support the now unemployed Vito and his young family. (Vito at first refuses, but later is forced to relent or see his family starve.) The scene in the theater was not in the novel.

Even if Genco had been afraid of Fanucci in the novel as he was shown to be in the second movie, I doubt that that would have prevented Vito from naming his apparently wise friend to the key position of consigliere (for which wisdom and shrewdness are necessities). After all, Vito got his start by standing up to Fanucci when even Clemenza and Tessio were afraid to do so.

In regard to your last comment, yes, I think you have a point. Very powerful people do not need to state the obvious, they simply project power naturally. Leaving the matter as an implication rather than spelling it out might have been a more realistic nuance, though perhaps too subtle for all viewers to appreciate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.191.108.18 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea that despite the cowardice, he would still be consigliere or maybe even because of it, since perhaps this sort of discretion would be valued but in any case, the fact that this is sort of distributed between the two films probably simply means they didn't think of it -- however, when one considers how much thought goes into writing books and screenplays, I never default to that assumption.

I don't think it was too subtle for the Don to have simply not said the "fear you" bit and it is maybe something that Coppola regrets. I think the most interesting thing about the Godfather Saga's extra scenes is just how much superfluous stuff weakens a film. That they did not go into the molestation of the child star by Woltz in The Godfather and, in particular, did not have the Don refer to it as an "infamnia" (sp) was a very good choice.

I am not too versed in doing stuff with Wikipeda and do not know how to delete an entire section but I have seen it done since articles definitely have had sections removed.--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your posts on talk pages
Hi, can you please remember to add four tildes at the conclusion of your posts on talk pages so your signature appears. You have added comments at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses without signing them. Further information is at Signatures. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Judicial activism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

APPEAL TO YOU Reg: [BRAHMAN PUJAN], [UNIVERSAL PRAYERS]. written by [Naresh Sonee] On wikipedia, These above two pages are far older than the present article [Brahman] References of above titles are also available on New York site - http://www.printsasia.com/BookDetails.aspx?Id=445813482 Meanwhile, Can your good selves in Wiki Project Indian Community re-create a precise pages on [Naresh Sonee] & his book [Brahmand Pujan] – [Brahmaand Pujan]. However, Sonee is the writer of  this  book  [Brahmand Pujan] written in 1999. registered with Government of India- HRRD. Details of the registration is provided here on http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com/. More than sufficient, news and reviews are there on http://brhmaandpujan-news-reviews.tripod.com/ Since 5-6 yrs, for one or the other reason pages of [Naresh Sonee] & [Brahmand Pujan] are faced by communal bias from outside India  so these articles over and again get deleted here in Wikipedia for minor reasons. However, many hits of - Naresh Sonee reflects on google search engine also. So, I request Wiki Indian community to kindly come forward and generously help these two pages to grow, as I am fed up to fight my case alone here [left] and moved out long back. Meanwhile, such an important info/issue on ‘Indian literature’  which adds & spell  ‘new meaning /dimension’  to Brahman -should it stay lost else ignored? Your community panel has to judge at last. Myself, will not be on Wikipedia, for the same i apologise, but- pls. help these two pages to get reinstalled, reap, sow and grow, if you too feel so, I appeal to do this munificent favour. Regards- Dralansun (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

—I have no idea what you are talking about, but thanks for stopping by!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  N419 BH  18:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Copying this here but it's on my talk page too.


 * All you have to do is indent your post with one more colon than mine and you can respond just fine. I think I've fixed all the formatting. What was missing was a tag at the end of your comment.  N419 BH  18:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things HistoryBuff14. First, don't edit the same article logged in and logged out (or if you do edit it logged out by accident, which I presume is what happened in this case, say something to confirm that it's you). Otherwise, one of my more trigger happy colleagues will block you for sockpuppetry. Second, don't accuse another editor of libel - that will get you blocked also (read WP:NLT for the policy). Now, I understand that what you were saying was that you thought the Dutch report was libellous, which is as maybe, but just be careful tossing the term about on Wikipedia. Other than that, glad you two have cleared up the problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Robespierre
Thank you, too. It's always nice to meet someone interested in the good old days! :) SteveStrummer (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. A pleasure!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

ICC
Hi, I replied to you here. Kind regards. --EBB (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello HistoryBuff14! Thank you for contacting me. I do agree that there should be mention of American criticism of the Court in the article, likely in the "Criticism" section. However, to be clear the American argument is not a very good legal argument. The article that you provided concludes by saying that "The analysis of the historic precedent and principles of international law contained in this article has shown the ICC's jurisdiction over the nationals of non-party states to be well-grounded in international law. The exercise of such jurisdiction can be based both on the universality principle and the territoriality principle." The American argument is also not very credible because the United States exercises the same sort of territorial jurisdiction over non-nationals. For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the man who planned the 9/11 attacks) is standing trial for war crimes in an American court because the crime took place within the territory of the United States, even though he is not a national. – Zntrip 15:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * When I find the time, I plan to work on the article some more, which will include incorporating the position of the United States. I appreciate your input and I wish you a speedy recovery. Regards, – Zntrip 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Response
Hi. I've responded to your post [|here]. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2015
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Roger Waters for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

HistoryBuff14, the removal by Dave Dial was perfectly correct as per WP:SOAP (though Dave has violated SOAP on the same talk page, albeit much less obvious) and I was very close to removing your comment myself as it contributed nothing. Furthermore, your calling Dave a left wing zealot is a clear WP:NPA violation. We do not comment or speculate on other user's political motives. Please comment on article content in the future. Jeppiz (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz You at least sound civil and reasonable. Can you please explain the distinction between the above user invoking a letter from the ADL and my invoking the Hamas charter? In the former case, the user argues against including a section on the subject's alleged anti-Semitism because (at least in regard to the particular incident referenced) the ADL (his apparent point is that such constitutes the "horse's mouth"; i.e., an authority on such matters) exonerates the subject from the charge, while my citation from the Hamas charter (my horse's mouth) would seem to affirm it. I say both his comment and mine remain or they both go. Something about a goose and a gander, don't you know. Thank you for your input.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuff14 I would agree. Your comment was WP:SOAP, and so was his comment. I have no objection to anyone removing said comment under WP:SOAP, but please avoid speculating about his reasons and politics. We're here to comment on articles, not on each other. Jeppiz (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeppiz Thank you very much, but I'm done here. I just wanted to make the point.  I've never been involved in an edit war and I am not starting now.  I appreciate your time and input.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no way that any of my comments were off topic or SOAP. I was discussing the article, the sources, and Wikipedia policies. Any attempt to remove my legitimate Talk page comments will be considered Vandalism and escalate to ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful when editing talk pages, you just removed another user's valid comment. Furthermore, the comment you added was about the Israel-Palestine conflict, not about Waters. The RfC is only for discussion of accusations against Waters. WP:SOAP is a very important policy here. Jeppiz (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * JeppizOkay and sorry. It was unintentional.  Apparently there was an editing conflict.  I thanked you for the revert on the history.  Best regards, HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * HistoryBuff14 I know how frustrated you feel about the Rogers Waters revision process. From my perspective (and I think you feel the same), my wording of the RfC was adequate. But it becomes an issue of "eye of the beholder." Let's say a million people agree that something is "beautiful," and 1 person finds it ugly, then all the logic in the world is not going to change that person's sincerely-held view. In the context of my RfC, I probably could have worded it less ambiguously. I'm not sure what the official protocol is for revising RfCs, but I'm going to post a note on the Waters' talk page clarifying my original intent and asking for some guidance. I wanted to tell you before I did so because I know how passionate you are about this issue and you've been putting a lot of effort into it, which I really appreciate. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Maize
Saw your post at maize on the naming (not sure why you deleted it). Part of the reason why maize "wins" out is that it is considered the universal English term for the species in pretty much all countries, but a few such as as the US use corn predominantly. Even there though, scientists usually use the term maize in publications, so it seems to be a combination of that universal understanding coupled with corn being an ambiguous term in other areas for grains in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I deleted it because afterwards I realized that at least part of what I had asked was answered on the top of the talk page; i.e., when the last RfC on the question was.  I didn’t feel like getting reproached for such.  As to the issue, this seems outright silly to me not to call corn by the name that the vast majority of people know it as and almost as large a majority wouldn’t even know what maize is. And as others apparently noted, it is not just the U. S. that refers to it as corn.  As one person noted, even in the U.K. they have begun calling it corn.   One thing I personally have trouble dealing with is silliness.  "Popmaize," "maize-on-the cob."  As the pre-repentant Ebenezer Scrooge observed:  "I shall retire to Bedlam." Thanks again.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

''In addition, you should avoid editing your own talk page comments. If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information, you should follow the WP:REDACT guidelines. Thank you.'' Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Alastair Sim while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryan W. Ferguson article
Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Numbers of page watchers
Hello, I saw your question about numbers of page watchers at Talk:Wikipedia. I think the reason that pages with less than 30 watchers do not give a precise number of watchers, is because of sneaky vandalism. For various reasons some people like to insert incorrect material into Wikipedia articles, and they like it to remain undiscovered so that it is not reverted. Vandalism on articles with very few watchers is less likely to be reverted, so these people would be able to pick and choose which articles to insert untruths into. I think sometime in the distant past, some articles literally had no active watchers at all, and some of the vandals would target such articles. Of course, such behavior could be a very big problem if the article was covered by WP:BLP or was sensitive for other reasons. MPS1992 (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MPS1992Thank you very much. That sounds logical and reasonable.  Best regards. HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Spellbound (1945 film) are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

DS alert: AP2
― Mandruss  &#9742;  12:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ad verecundiam
This has been extensively discussed inside Wikipedia, see WP:VERECUNDIAM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC


 * @Tgeorgescu Thank you for your reference which I have read just in a cursory fashion thus far. With that limited reading, the problem I see is that authorities “who know what they are talking about” have often turned out to have been wrong throughout history.  My example of Lister’s detractors is just one prominent instance.  Scientists, especially physicists, seem to think that because of their erudition in their chosen fields and admittedly stratospheric IQs, they have some special insight into ontology over and above that of the intelligent layman to their fields.  I dispute this.  By way of analogy, although they might one day come to understand all the metaphorical algorithms of the metaphorical program that is our reality, they cannot account for the existence of the program itself.  Thus, they claim jurisdiction beyond their academic authority.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not deal in Absolute Truth. It deals in WP:V information from WP:RS. We chose the side of mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, the side of the National Academy of Sciences and of Ivy Plus. We are pretty unapologetic about such choice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Intelligent design
If you look through the archives, there is a lot of discussion about why intelligent design is a pseudoscience. It's not because they posit that an intelligence created the universe but because of the types of evidence they present, such as irreducible complexity. Compare with an astrologist and a pollster both trying to predict the 2020 U.S. presidential results. Even though the astrologist's prediction may be right and the pollster's wrong, we consider the astrologist's forecasts to be pseudo-science because they don't follow scientific method. TFD (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @TFD All I wanted was a moderate, reasonable revision by way of compromise. Instead of factually calling ID “pseudoscience,” the article should read something along the lines of:  “…is characterized by many within the contemporary scientific community as pseudoscience because….”  This is indeed a fact, the characterization.    It should not be up to an encyclopedia to endorse the characterization as such.  That is for the reader to decide.  However, as is so often the case on Wiki with contentious topics, the left doesn’t give a hoot about objectivity and shuts down even a discussion of such, exactly the way most right wing talk radio commentators do when the occasional intrepid liberal calls in and somehow makes it past the call screener.  “You’re an idiot!”   So much for reasoned discussion. Even though I am a conservative, I rarely listen as I want to hear both sides of an argument, point and counterpoint in an intellectually stimulating manner.


 * Whereas (mostly) right wing talk radio has millions of listeners daily, the ID Wiki article has about 700 page views a day. So I suppose I might sound a tad petulant lambasting the stranglehold the left has on Wiki, stifling reasoned debate.  On the other hand, it doesn’t really matter.  Even with its vastly superior audience, talk radio has scarcely more real influence than does Wiki.  Both preaches to the choir, confirmation bias.


 * For the record, although I remain a nominal Catholic, I really lean towards that philosophical ontology usually termed “pantheism,” albeit somewhat incorrectly. Why after decades of reading and pondering on various ontological schools (including atheism)  I have come to this belief is that it seems obvious that something or someone must have always existed as existence itself could not have emerged from nonexistence. Therefore, existence is primal. I feel it is more logical to assume that that something or someone is more likely to be sentient and possesses intelligence than not. So how do I account for the timelessly, eternally existing fundamental stratum of reality ("Brahman," i.e., undifferentiated, universal consciousness) that cannot be further sublated?   If you have any curiosity, perhaps you might be interested in reading my recent talk page notes on the Brahman article for a brief summary of my thought processes.  Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * First you should note that "the left" and mainstream science are not the same thing, and sometimes not upon the same page. Second, Wikipedia isn't Debatepedia, where they present arguments for both sides as equally valid. Third, Wikipedia's choice for mainstream science cannot be undone in that article. If we would make an exception we would have to make exceptions in all articles, and the quality of the encyclopedia would go to the dogs. You might not realize, but this choice has made Wikipedia great, unlike Conservapedia or New World Encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't politically biased (other than de facto endorsing Western liberal democracies). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @TgeorgescuWhen I refer to debating in this context, I am referring to the talk page note and not the article. I made my suggested revision and before anyone could weigh in to support the proposed revision (if anyone would), an all too typical Wiki petty tyrant unilaterally decreed an end to the discussion.  (“Can’t have that!  Someone might actually agree with him!")  So what was I to do?  Revert and be accused of edit warring?  I did what I was supposed to do; i.e., propose and discuss a substantive change to the article on the talk page rather than just unilaterally making the edit in the articleHistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC).


 * After reading such argument for the 200th time, regulars were irritated. Sometimes for contentious articles is best to search the archives, if it is a perennial problem, the question has been asked before. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu Why have a presidential election in 2020? The voters spoke in 2016!  If the issue has been discussed before, new raeders might like to weigh the issues involved and previous readers might be amenable to a change in attitude by such debate on projected revisions.HistoryBuff14 (talk)


 * Not the same thing. WP:ARBPS wasn't cancelled and WP:FRINGE wasn't abrogated. So, the WP:RULES remained essentially unchanged. c (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu Fringe? Well, that’s pretty much the point, isn’t it?  Yesterday’s fringe has so often proven to be today’s mainstream.  If people had reused to even discuss a ‘fringe” POV, then, as with my previous example, surgeons today wouldn’t be advised to even wash their hands before operating.  On another example doubtlessly more to your liking, how long ago was global warming considered a fringe position?  Yesterday's heretic is today's orthodox.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a problem, but it is not our problem. It is a problem of mainstream science, which exists outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia merely mirrors mainstream science, it is not supposed to change it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The belief that the universe shows design is the the argument from design. ID is something different, because its adherents claim they are following the scientific method. As an article on Berkeley's website says, "Intelligent Design is very different from science. Though the idea deals with phenomena in the natural world, research in this area does not bear any of the other hallmarks of science. Most importantly, though proponents sometimes make testable — and refuted — claims that relate to evolutionary theory, Intelligent Design itself is not testable and so cannot be validated by the central method of science — testing ideas against evidence from the natural world."

Modern natural science was never meant to answer philosophical or theological questions. It can't tell us what things are beautiful, what actions are ethical or whether there is a spiritual world. It's only useful for its predictive value not as an explanation of reality.

Scientific theories are falsifiable. That is experiments can be devised that can disprove them if they are wrong. Genetic testing for example has disproved the theory that the giant panda was a type of racoon. But there is no conceivable test that could disprove ID.

TFD (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @TFD Is this what you are getting at, and I misunderstand what the ID Wiki article is about?:


 * http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/intelligent-design-vs.-the-argument-from-design


 * There is a difference between philosophy and pseudoscience. Philosophy is "not science", but not pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @TgeorgescuOkay, so is the simulation hypothesis science, pseudoscience or philosophy? Is it intelligent design or Argument from design?  Is Elon Musk, for example, a scientist, a philosopher or a crank?


 * AFAIK simulation hypothesis is science fiction. E.g. I love the Alien movies, but I know these aren't real. You see, those Thomistic philosophers know enough philosophy of science, which prevents them from engaging in a battle wherein they are easily defeated. Elon Musk is none of those, he is an entrepreneur. Simulation hypothesis is irrefutable in the same sense that solipsism is: no amount of evidence could convince a solipsist, philosophers usually don't bother to refute solipsism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @TFD @Tgeorgescu Okay, after reviewing your input as well as the article I referenced, it has become apparent to me that I might have confused intelligent design as a purported science and the philosophical argument from design paradigm. I have spent many years reading and studying all three major ontological schools, theistic, pantheistic and atheistic,  and it has become apparent to me that they all run into the same stumbling block of ultimate origins.  The concept of “no beginning” (of anything) seems incomprehensible to the human intellect.  Therefore, I conclude that the answer must lie elsewhere within a logic incomprehensible to the intellect.  That is, if any answer at all is obtainable to us then it must lie with an empirical exercise and not an intellectual one.  Perhaps what the mystics have told us since time immemorial is correct and that the only way to prove such is to do it, travel the same path they have.  They cannot grant us their understanding but can only point the way.  Telling someone learning to ride a bike to:  “Balance yourself” will not achieve the desired outcome, but merely point the way.  The person must discover the technique by actually attempting it until such is achieved.


 * Secondly, I cannot easily dismiss the “too many coincidences to be chance” argument out of hand. I have noted more and more atheistic, materialist apologists resorting to the theorized but as yet  unproven  Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM to answer this, a seeming implicit admission of the validity of this skeptical argument in support of design.  It is basically the “infinite number of monkeys pecking away on an infinite number of typewriters….” of trite analogy.


 * Thank you both for an interesting conversation. I shall make no more comments on the Wiki ID article talk page.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There's an article about the philosophical argument, Teleological argument. ID differs since it views it as a scientific argument that can be proved (or disproved) through empirical research. It's perfectly rational to accept the teleological argument, it's only pseudoscience when it is treated as science rather than philosophy. I don't know much about the simulation hypothesis, but its adherents don't argue that the world we know shows evidence of design. It could be their theory is too undeveloped to qualify as a scientific hypothesis. TFD (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Intelligent design and Teleological arguments
FYI - The basic reason “psuedoscience” is said at Intelligent design is just that enough editors really wanted to. And insisted on putting it in line 1. You can read archives -say 75 and 82 - as there were a number of objections that it’s a biased-looking start and just not the way Scientific organizations responded. I think there were eventual edits to PSCI and such to embed calling ID by the vague pejorative as WP policy. Meh, at least that makes for bias detected fairly obvious up front, kind of two wrongs making it almost-right.

Some of that editor-whims seems also bled over into Teleological argument, saying it “is” an argument for the existence of God, rather than saying Teleological argument is an approach of reasoning best known in its use by Aquinas. And jamming mention of ID into line 1 and para 3, although ID as Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity isn’t really Teleological and the article doesn’t have sections about it..

Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:RULES are in favor of calling it pseudoscience because Wikipedia is biased for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. That's part of what Wikipedia is. We make no apologies for kowtowing to Ivy Plus and the National Academy of Sciences. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2020
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Proud Boys for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi HistoryBuff14, we’re having a discussion on weather on the Boost Mobile whether  one of its sections should be moved to another page and we would like  for you input thanks BigRed606 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Major discussion update
Hi HistoryBuff14, their is another major update concerning the section move proposal for the Boost Mobile article. If it is not too much to ask would you please again respond with you thoughts on the new development in the discussion thank you. BigRed606 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Update on the photo of Christopher Morcom
Three years ago, we discussed the copyright status and authorship of a photo of Alan Turing and a photo of Christopher Morcom in Talk:Alan_Turing/Archive_4. In commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Alan_Turing, we found out that both photos may have entered in the public domain in 2008 or will be in 2025. I contacted the archivist recently and I posted an email from them with their permission in the Commons link, which gives some information about both photos.

I'm so sorry that I didn't contact the archivist until now. I kept thinking "I'll do it later" and then it ended up being a three-year-long procrastination. I should've done this a lot sooner. Next time, I'll fulfill my promises on time, and I won't keep people waiting this long anymore. FunnyMath (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics.

Sorry for the triple template, but you’ve touched an intersection of all three. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Rorke's Drift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal. 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) 06:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)