User talk:JerryRussell

Welcome!
Hello, JerryRussell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister  talk  00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Stop treating Wikipedia like your blog. Just stop it. learn the policies and guidelines and work by them. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Jytdog, welcome to my home page. This feels absolutely nothing like my blog.
 * Apparently we don't agree about the correct interpretation of the policies. Do you have any more specific thoughts?JerryRussell (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

== MjolnirPants, Is the concept of 'fringe' a similar rhetorical device? == No. The concept of fringe is well defined at WP:FRINGE and Fringe theory. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply
To answer this your question... (a) I almost always respond when someone pings me or asks me a question. (b) I have a habit of watching all old disputes where I previously commented, until these disputes are settled. (c) I am interested in certain subjects and watch certain pages. None of that is forbidden. To the contrary, a positive collaboration in the project (that is what I do) is encouraged. My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss something related to behavior of a user (and alleged "tag-teaming" is obviously a behavior issue), this must be done first on a talk page of the user or on your own talk page. Talk pages of articles exist for discussing improvement of pages. Do you satisfied by my explanation above? My very best wishes (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello My very best wishes, Wiki editing is a steep learning curve. I have been consulting WP:GANG which gives guidelines for dealing with suspected tag-team editing. Apparently there is no policy against 'tag-teams', or even any guidelines; the article is just an essay. The recommendation for editors such as myself, is to assume good faith, maintain civility, and focus on specific policy violations by particular editors.


 * As to content matters, I don't agree with your view that the material about human shields is not relevant to the topic. Out of all the other editors, you are the only one who has staked out that particular position.


 * However, I appreciate that you have not said anything to cast aspersions against my integrity as an editor. JerryRussell (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not telling it is completely irrelevant, it is just more relevant to other pages where it belongs. It is really surprising that you consider such minor issue on the subject you did not edit before as something worth wasting your time unless there is something else involved. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi My very best wishes, I started following the NPOV noticeboard as a result of a discussion I had with user:SageRad, here. We collaborated briefly on an AfD discussion. His parting comment to me was, as of now, his last contribution at Wikipedia. However, I will also say I consider the matter of US foreign relations with Russia to be a matter of the utmost importance. And I know that many people rely on Wikipedia as the first and best source of unbiased information on the web. JerryRussell (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I think you should really follow the piece of advice provided by this essay. Contribute to the content, and if your changes were not supported by others on page X (yes, that happens very often), just try to improve another page Y. What you actually do right now is contributing to bad behavior by other users. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you be more specific? That is, which users are behaving badly, and how am I contributing to their behavior? JerryRussell (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained it here. Sorry, but my time is up. If you need more advice, please ask someone else, but preferably not the users who you unfairly accused of misbehavior. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much for your time, and for the explanatory link. JerryRussell (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to and 'pinging' other users
I note that you've left a query as to how to ping users from talk pages. Template:Reply to is the best starting point for learning the ins and outs of alerting other editors. It only works for those who have accounts, not for IP contributors. You don't need to ping editors from their own talk page as they will receive a notification of a message having been left on their talk page, or of having been 'mentioned' from the menu across the very top of the right hand side of the screen (Your user account → 2 boxes (alerts + messages) → Talk → Sandbox → et. al. In effect, pinging someone from their own talk page is redundant. If someone doesn't respond immediately, it's usually an indicator that they're busy in some other area of Wikipedia or may have logged out for the day. If there isn't a response for a while (I'm talking a couple of days), it's useful to check their editing history to see whether they've been editing at all since you left the message. If they haven't, just wait. If they have been editing, you may want to follow up with another reminder. Editors don't always respond if they have their own reasons for not wanting to respond. If it seems that you're being ignored, there's nothing to be done about it per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. It shouldn't be considered an affront or a concern unless the behaviour fits WP:NOTHERE and the editor is obviously avoiding any attempts to respond to content concerns you may have. That's a different kettle of fish entirely. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , thank you for this very helpful information. JerryRussell (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments
Thank you for stepping up and doing the reading on the Earthquake Prediction page's POV/neutrality issues. That discussion desperately needed another voice. Elriana (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing this contributor with . I'm just acting as an intermediary to pass on your thanks. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I thanked exactly who I meant to thank. J Johnson is an old voice in that discussion, and it very much needed a new one. I have (in the past) thanked J Johnson for their contributions to the topic. I feel no need to do so again at this particular time (although I may do so in the future). However, I did wish to express appreciation for a relatively new user who took the time to meaningfully contribute to a discussion that has been annoyingly contentious. Elriana (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the appreciation, I find the earthquake topic intriguing. My pleasure to participate. A belated thanks for your lengthy comment to me here on your talk page a while back. The longer I think about it, the more apropos your remarks seem. JerryRussell (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see that your first experiences with Wikipedia didn't put you off editing entirely. I possibly have a slightly brutal mentality about editing, but it cuts both ways, and I don't think even the most experienced editors can avoid being stung on a regular basis. I'm constantly stepping into subject areas and getting slapped down. If I can't convince other editors that their sources are reactionary, for example, then I can only step back and concede to the consensus view. In the end, there are so many subject areas in desperate need of attention, there's plenty to keep us all in over our ears in mischief. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

VAN method for earthquake prediction
I've been engaged in a discussion with at Talk:Earthquake prediction, and it was going far off-topic with respect to the specific questions he asked at his RfC. He requested that we move the conversation here to my talk page.

I would like to make it clear that in general, I agree that many or perhaps all of the Greek IP editors' proposed changes to the article went well beyond NPOV, to the point of advocacy for the VAN method. I appreciate JJ's work in challenging the IP editors regarding those edits.

JJ, your comments to the IP editors (and to me) indicate that you believe the VAN method is pathological science, and should be treated according to WP:FRINGE policies. I feel there's considerable merit in that position. Various sources clearly state that the VAN group has mis-represented their results, that they have no valid methodology, and that they have unnecessarily caused public panic on numerous occasions. One source specifically states that they believe VAN is pathological.

But on the other hand, I also see that the VAN group have vigorously rebutted those accusations at every opportunity. No academic tribunals have been successfully instituted to redress alleged misconduct, and that they continue to publish their materials in highly respected journals. I think it's notable that a group from Peking has recently taken an interest in the VAN method (see and ).

The Greek IP editors have also indicated their view that critics of VAN may be representing a government policy. I see some possible merit in that position as well.

As Wiki editors, I understand that it's not our job to determine Truth, but that our job is to determine what the RS say. For WP:FRINGE to apply, we would need to find that the RS indicate something approaching a scientific consensus that VAN is pathological. (This consensus wouldn't necessarily need to extend to the VAN group themselves, or their close associates). You could certainly make a case for that, and I would respect your opinion.

But, at this point, I still feel that the scientific jury hasn't collectively finished with this. Uyeda and the Japanese group can't be obviously dismissed as a dependent source, and now there is support from China as well. And the possibility of a COI on the part of VAN critics can't be dismissed out of hand, either. JerryRussell (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Jerry, perhaps you may consider the following regarding VAN:
 * 1. The SES generation mechanism is plausible and has been confirmed by lab experiments, at least in part.
 * 2. There is no acceptable explanation for the SES propagation mechanism.
 * 3. It appears that Varotsos, at least in the early days, did not follow the standard scientific research protocol (keeping a lab logbook etc) and started that crap with the telegrams. But please consider that in those days OTE was highly regarded as a part of the Greek Government.
 * 4. Varotsos has never published technical details about his equipment, so that his experiemnts can be independently reproduced. Only his associated have access to this information.
 * 5. Varotsos has not conducted, using a specialist subcontractor, an evaluation of the EMC issues of his implementation of VAN. I understand that this capability was not available in Greece in the 1980s but it certainly exists since 2000 or so.
 * 6. Now about his former critics in Greece, like Papazachos, Stavrakakis etc, they have never published any useful or constructive criticism, they were using their position, political power and access to the media to block any diversion of limited government funding from their projects towards VAN. They were deliberately confusing the issue of a reliable EQ warning which can be acted upon by the state vs a scientific research project. By now these guys have left science to get into politics.
 * 7. About his critics outside Greece (Geller, Mulgaria, Gasperini etc.) It seems that they had in the past expressed views that EQ prediction is inherently impossible and they tried to discredit VAN to save their ass.
 * I have come to the conclusion that both sides have published lots of BS and that neither VAN nor its critics deserve an extensive coverage in WP. A brief history including criticism, a consice technical description and a few published references is adequate for an encyclopedia. The concept of natural time etc is just fringe and I would not include it at all.
 * SV1XV (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Roger SV1XV, thank you for this info. The entire article on earthquake prediction is rather dismal in the sense that nothing seems to work. VAN is the only method that seems to be inspiring any ongoing research at all, aside from trend forecasting. But there doesn't seem to be much cause for optimism. I would say that the coverage of VAN should be roughly proportional to all the other methods that don't work either -- maybe a little extra because of the need to provide some coverage of all the bickering. In order to decide something (like 'natural time') is fringe, don't we need at least an RS that says so? Anyhow, VAN is definitely notable enough to have its own article, where the natural time concept can be given some space. Do you even understand what they're talking about? One aspect seems to be similar to wavelet analysis, as a means of filtering the signal from EMI. Over, KG7HJI JerryRussell (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that research in the field of SES is useful and in the long term could produce intersting results. The original assumption about SES generation seems to be sound (see the Hadjicontis & Mavromatou paper of 2007). However Varotsos was pushed hard to demostrate accurate EQ predictions in order to secure some funding. He was forced to propose an implausible SES transmission mechanism and, worse, to get involved with media and politics. In addition he managed, somehow, to alienate all his early reseach colleagues and associates. By now almost all major VAN proponents and critics are retired or RIP and, unless there is a breakthrough, VAN shall gradually fade into obscurity.
 * Now about this natural time proposal: Chaotic phenomena, like rupture dynamics, supposedly evolve at their own particular time scale, which is not the BIMP physical time (as measured by a clock) but may expand or contract during the evolution of the chaotic process. Not something specific to EQ research, and only indirectly related to the SES of the original VAN theory. Varotsos claims that he can identify "markers", either SES or foreshocks or whatever, which correlate the natural time of the generation of an EQ to the BIMP physical time.
 * SV1XV (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are reasons I believe the "SES generation mechanism" (I am tempted to ask, which one?) is not plausible. And I disagree with SV1XV's views re the critics, but that is deep subject to get into. Maybe later on. By the way, Varotsos wasn't forced to come up with an implausible SES mechanism (it was just the best he could do), nor to get involved with media and politics. That he embraced.


 * Jerry, please note that I do not believe that "the VAN method ... should be treated according to WP:FRINGE policies." It is certainly a minority view, evidently wrong, even deprecated, but I do not call it "fringe", nor even "pseudoscience": it is not "obviously bogus" (see WP:FRINGE/ps), and it does have a body of work ("scholarship"). (Unlike, resp., the Jupiter effect, and "natural time".) I will call it pathological. (And that is a change of view since I started framing these comments.)


 * However, I think you are a bit naive to expect any RS that clearly and explicitly states "scientific consensus is" one way or the other, let alone that there is any kind of "scientific jury" that decides such things. There is no scientific equivalent of a Papal Bull. There is the letter in Physics Today where Geller, Jackson, Kagan, Mulargia, and Stiros say that "VAN's research also appears to fall into this category". But that is just five authorities, and VAN would complain they are all critics. And biased.


 * So how do we resolve these kinds of situations? One approach is to "line up the arguments for both sides", then "let the readers decide". Only, that doesn't really work. E.g., in Physics Today VAN reply that the critics "are repeating cliams that have already been published, and that we have already proven to be incorrect." For which they cite ten articles by VAN, but without any explanation or specification of just what those supposed proofs are. Or you have the situation where to refute Mulargia & Gasperini 1992 VAN cite Hamada 1993, Shnirman et al. 1993, Nishizawa et al. 1993, and Uyeda 1991. But then each of these have been found lacking by others. In the end: 1) It's hard to find all of those details. 2) Explaining all of that really bloats the article. 3) Most readers don't want to have to weigh all that themselves, and any event most readers don't have the knowledge or experience to do that.


 * Alternately, we editors do all that, then present a summary for the readers. It's not "deterimining Truth", it's trying to determine who the mainstream community thinks most likely has the better handle on "Truth". In this case it comes to deciding which is the better POV: VAN as pathological science, or the greatest invention since Archimedes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks very much for taking so much of your time to reply to my comments. As a relatively new editor here, I take everyone's feedback very seriously.


 * Now that we're here, I can say that I agree with you that the Greek editors were trying to bias the article, and that edit warring is a conduct issue. They were also rather harsh with personal attacks against you on the talk page. They seem to have disappeared from the conversation now, and I doubt that they'll be back. If they do return, I think we should ask for a sock-puppet investigation.


 * Thanks very much for the clarification that you are not advocating for WP:FRINGE policies. I'm pretty sure VAN is not the greatest thing since Archimedes, but it might not be completely pathological either. Assuming good intentions on both sides of the controversy, it's possible that there is some correlation between the SES signals and earthquakes, but not good enough to give unambiguous predictions on a regular basis that are close enough to satisfy reasonable requirements for public announcements. Or it's also possible that there really is no correlation, and that the VAN group was deceived by wishful thinking.


 * I agree with you that the idea of a jury sitting in judgement of Scientific Consensus feels strange and uncharacteristic, but that is exactly the situation at Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, where various authorities have decreed a scientific consensus that GMO's are safe to eat, and Wikipedia editors have agreed with these authorities. JerryRussell (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The GMO issue is interesting, because the industry has worked long and hard to define the issue as whether GMO crops are "safe to eat". But what alarms some of us is that most of the GMO seed sold is designed to be resistant to herbicides, allowing farmers to use more herbicide, and the resistance genes are now showing up in the weeds. (Oops.) Different issue, and one I would love to get into, but as you may have noted I am pretty fully involved in other issues.


 * On the RfC: if the "Athens edits" should continue, well, I don't know if a SPI would do much, unless it showed that a certain lead author was involved. (Which I do suspect.) If there is concurrence on the RfC that the edits were non-neutral, etc., then any further editing from those IP addresses could be the basis of a range block.


 * As to VAN itself: ah, one my favorite topics is epistemology, the study of "why we think we know what we think we know". Or: why we should accept anything as a belief. VAN can be studied epistemologically at multiple levels. In respect of which pathological science is interesting reading. (Or see Geller's discussion of it in Lighthill, section 3.2, pp.175-77.) In the end there is a need for critical analysis, which unfortunately seems to be in short supply.


 * Time to write more content! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. You don't have to ping me on every comment, as I know about this discussion, and I do have this on my watchlist. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks JJ, for the explanation of your strategy on the RfC.


 * Regarding the GMO issue, it seems to me that Wikipedia itself, as an institution, has a massive conflict of interest. On the one hand, Wiki needs free editing help, it cannot afford to pay to create the millions of pages of content that make up this site. On the other hand, it needs to present a public image of objectivity. Accordingly, policies have been created under which editors with varying degrees of industrial or governmental COI can freely register accounts and edit pages, and those editors are protected from examination or "outing" by the policies protecting editor confidentiality.
 * I want to be clear that I am not casting aspersions against any particular editor, as it is almost always impossible to distinguish between COI editing vs. editing by independent opinionated citizens. But can anyone doubt that among the 88 editors who commented at this recent GMO RfC, there were some with undisclosed COI?  JerryRussell (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the situation is quite as dire as that. Anyone who would edit – especially if they are paid to do so – is expected to declare any COI on a topic, and anyone failing to do so come is subject to the sockpuppetry rules. Note that editors with strong COI can make useful contributions (though they are advised to stand-off a bit and only offer suggestions, rather than editing directly). Even undeclared COI tends to be self-limiting: if a certain view is shown to be "correct" (i.e., well-supported) then it doesn't matter if someone is heavily invested in it. And if it is not well-supported then it shouldn't matter how many paid shills are supporting it. The problem, of course, as we see re VAN, is that determination of what is well-supported can get messy if people try to spin the discussion, are disruptive, etc. That is where we start getting into reputation and other deeper matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, you said above that you saw "some possible merit" in the view that "critics of VAN may be representing a government policy". How do you reckon that? In that the principal critics (Geller, Wyss, Mulargia, Gasperini, Kagan, Jackson, etc.) are not Greek, which government, and which policy, are they supposedly representing? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding undisclosed COI among Wikipedia editors, one can only speculate how widespread this might be.


 * "Critics of VAN may be representing a government policy", my tentative support for that view is also based on speculation on my part. I noticed that Papadopoulos works for the Greek gov't agency that was set up to review VAN predictions. As to the rest of the critics, I have not done any research into their funding sources, or how said funding might cause conflicts of interest. I also haven't done research into US or other government policies on earthquake prediction. Obviously edits to the article would be based only on verifiable information -- speculation on my part would be irrelevant. JerryRussell (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * think it is disingenuous to say that "Papadopoulos works for the Greek gov't agency that was set up to review VAN predictions", as it suggests that the government - always the perniciousness of governments! - was gunning for VAN, and (holy shades of Galilleo!) suppressing good science. For starters I would have to ask, which agency? The Greek government has set up several committees over the years to review all earthquake predictions (not just VAN's). While Papadopoulos may have served on one or more, the policy the gov't was implementing was to evaluate earthquake predictions on their scientific merits. As to any effort to starve VAN of funding: well, Stiros (1997) documents how 46% of the funding for seismological studies from the Earthquake Protection and Planning for 1981-1989 went to VAN. I don't know if the National Observatory of Athens (where Papadopoulos worked) was in competition for that money, but I haven't seen any indication that the VAN controversy was simply a fight for budget. Several of the critics said VAN is a waste of money, but the criticism is all about bad science. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JJ, I think before I go expressing too many more wild speculations, I need to go do whatever it takes to get more of these papers to read & study.
 * Good idea. As to not being sure (yet, or ever), that has probably done less harm overall than being absolutely, unbendably sure. Send me an e-mail if there are any particular articles you want. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In case you're wondering: I have absolutely no previous experience in this area, or any COI to declare -- other than that I live in the Cascadia subduction zone. I do flatter myself to think I can tell the difference between good science and bad, but only after very careful study. If I had to guess without putting in the work -- I think you're most likely right that VAN method is wishful thinking, and "natural time" is an epicycle, aka lipstick on the pig. I'm just not sure yet.


 * When it comes to government policies: from a Postmodern perspective, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right one is doing. Or from a Machiavellian point of view, it can make perfect sense for the Prince to fund competing agendas. But in Papadopoulos' case, I would be very comfortable arguing that his employment created a potential financial COI, whether or not it created an actual bias in this situation. JerryRussell (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From a postmodern perspective, the same could (and should) be said of virtually any form of research taking place across a broad spectrum of 'empirical' sciences... but this is Wikipedia, and we go by a conservative reading of mainstream sources rather than Truthiness. It may be frustrating, but it's a great exercise in self-discipline. I know that a lot of editors don't believe the content they are obliged to support but, hey, that's just what 'being' part of dystopia is all about. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that Papadopoulos has a financial COI. Before accepting such a view I would want documentation as to just where was employed, and where there budget came from, but I would object to even going down that road as being a distraction from documented scientific issues. You might as well say that Varotsos has a financial COI because because if he is discredited he is likely to loose a LOT more money than Papadopoulus has at stake. At any rate, such conflicts would be personal, and not amount to representation of a government policy. The government (Greek, or anyone else) is not suppressing any kind of science here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "critics of VAN may be representing a government policy" : This statement is not correct. There was no government policy in Greece against VAN. There was always a flow of research funds to the VAN team originally and to the Solid Earth Physics Institute later. Also there was support by the Hellenic Army with communication facilities, especially in the early period, and with provision of support personnel. However partisan politics were frequently mixed in the early controvesies and political influence and affiliations were covertly used by both sides, especially by the opponents of VAN. SV1XV (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * From the scanty sources it seems that most of the politicking was charging government officials with failure to act on supposedly sound knowledge of an impending earthquake. In at least one case it seems that Varotsos himself went to the public prosecutor; I don't know why you would say this was done "especially by the opponents of VAN." But no matter, I think we all agree that VAN was not being oppressed by "the government". And perhaps even that criticism of VAN is/was not politically motivated. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The political and social situation is much more complicated. When there is an earthquate, the public is charging government officials with failure to act, or even with suppressing scientific information. But when the government announces that there is a possible impending EQ at a specific area (based on foreshocks) locals accuse the government that the announcement and associated publicity causes reduction to turism in the area. It's a no win situation.

Criticism on VAN within Greece was not politically motivated, it was motivated by competition for limited research funds.

About partisan politics now, you have to understand that in Greece people need political patronage even for minor issues. I cannot explain in detail how this affects the VAN controvesies of 1981-2000 without naming 2-3 living persons with good leftist political connections, so I have to end it here. I can only say that in technical terms the criticism was as vague as VAN's assumptions of SES propagation and spatial selectivity. When the critics were pressed for technical detail, they invariably switched their rhetoric to issues related to the usufulness of a successful prediction. After about 2000 all discussions have died out, the opponents have moved to other activities, Varotsos and Eftaxias are now retired and younger people simply ignore the issue. SV1XV (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced Greek criticism of VAN was financially motivated. As (according to Anagnostopoulos) VAN obtained "generous funding outside normal channels", I suspect there was less "budget envy" than annoyance Varotsos doesn't play by the same rules as everyone else. But even if that was a factor, then (as I said above) the principal critics (Geller, Wyss, Mulargia, Gasperini, Kagan, Jackson, etc.) are not Greek, so they are hardly competing for budget.


 * You say that when the critics "were pressed for technical detail, they invariably switched their rhetoric ...." I don't see that. What I see is VAN caviling about various little details, without really addressing the criticism. It seems that VAN (and our IP editor) are certain that they have PROVEN various point that they see no need to return to them. Nor to embrace several suggestions that have been made.


 * That the younger generation ignores all this just goes to show there is nothing to it. It like those "pnuematic tents": once the pump stops, the tent collapses.


 * BTW, do you have any documentation of when Varotsos retired? Are they still producing predictions? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They still produce predictions, although in the recent years I do not pay much attention to their activities. Strangely nobody gives a hint about V's retirement, but as he was born in 1947, he would have retired in August 2014 according to the law. Eftaxias should have retired one year later. Nomikos left VAN around 1990 and retired before 2010. The main supporter of VAN in recent years, Akis Tselentis, is 60 years old, but he is not directly involved in the operations of VAN. His other supporter (and former opponent!), G. Houliaras, is 59.
 * About Greek critics, I am old enough to remember the sitation in 1981-2000 very well. This criticism about "not playing by the same rules" is not relevant, because until V showed up, his opponents were not playing (ie doing any serious research) at all; seismology in Greece in 1980 was still in its infancy. With few exeptions, scientific research in Greece in all fields was in its infancy back then; it improved greatly only after Eurpean funds started to pour in in the mid 1980s.
 * Now discussing possible motives of living persons in public, Geller (he should be retired as well by now) and his followers could easily sue me if commented without hard evidence, so I prefer not to answer. However I can point out that VAN very early attracted support by H. Tazieff, S. Uyeda and O. Kulhanek, with so little evidence and so many open issues. This may indirectly answer your question about possible motives of scientists and researchers. SV1XV (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems no one is paying much attention to their activities, which is a profound statement of their notability. But I would expect that Varotsos' retirement (at least) would catch some attention in the local press. Or even at UoA, as a change of status, but I didn't see anything on the English language side. I think his retirement would be sufficiently notable to mention, if we had a source. Can you find anything in the Greek language press?
 * I have not seen anything in the press. It seems that Varotsos is no longer a national celebrity. SV1XV (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem pretty incensed about Geller. But saying you have some kind of evidence against him but you can't reveal it is no better than no evidence at all. And worse, as it amounts to an attempt to insinuate doubt without evidence, a rhetorical device that has no validity in scientific debate. Or Wikipedia.
 * On the contrary, you seem to be connected somehow with him. Is he also retired? Anyway, please read carefully what I write. I don't claim to have any evidence; you troll me about his possible motives and I simply state that I cannot discuss the issue in public without hard evidence. SV1XV (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why you would think I am "connected somehow" with Geller any more than anyone else? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That VAN attracted adherents at an early stage is not surprising; most new ideas with any prospects do so. That a handful of people have persisted in their adherence despite strong criticism is less to do with any merits of telluric currents than of human psychology. In this regard I have come around to the view that VAN exhibits aspects of pathological science. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I list some illustrious supporters not to claim that there is some merit in VAN, but to show that in such cases the motives for becoming a supporter or an opponent are often not related to scientific evidence. SV1XV (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you overstate the situation. As a rough generalization I would say that all parties in the VAN disputations are "scientists", with some commitment to following scientific norms, etc. The problem (in all of these kinds of issues) is that at various points one has to make critical evaluations and judgments, and here these non-rational factors may enter in. These might accumulate and lead one into a totally erroneous position. But it would be a grievous error to ignore the scientific evidence – or the lack of such evidence – and attribute a person's position solely on some motive "often not related to the scientific evidence". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Role of my personal opinions with respect to Wiki editing
In the above discussion on VAN method, I find that I am becoming confused about the role of personal opinions at Wikipedia. I have read the various policy and guidance pages, and find them confusing and contradictory. Some key principles are: (1) Wiki is not a soapbox, discussions should be focused on content; (2) Content is to be based on reliable sources; (3) User pages are primarily for discussion of user conduct issues; (4) "Meta" discussions about editing are OK in user space.

Has the discussion crossed over the line, from discussing what the sources say, to having a debate about our own opinions? I have been assuming that everyone participating in the discussion is comfortable about its appropriateness, but am not sure. Does anyone have any concerns that the discussion has been inappropriate or tendentious or sanctionable, especially on my part? JerryRussell (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Would anyone agree that an unavoidable Wiki editorial duty is the evaluation of reliable sources to determine whether those sources are biased? That is, perhaps, the essence of the discussion above: our views about whether VAN sources are biased and unreliable, and conversely whether the critics might be similarly biased because of disclosed or undisclosed COI. JerryRussell (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully agree that it is "an unavoidable Wiki editorial duty" to evaluate (and weigh) sources. Not just for "bias", but to evaluate their notability, whether the view is representative of the mainstream view, etc. By sharing our views on such matters we (hopefully) improve those views. No problem if we have go around a few times to get to the bottom of something; in the end it means our opinions are better founded. (And well screwed-in?) The ban against expression of personal opinions can't be taken too strictly (as all judgements are, in the end, opinion), and is mainly about using WP space more like a blog. I don't think there is any problem where we are discussing why we have differents about the sources, etc. It is to be expected that no two WP editors will come up with a single, consistent POV on the first read.  Discussing these is how we sort these out and move toward a single voice. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of clearing up how you intend to reach conclusions, could you please both note that talk pages are also subject to WP:BLPVIO. You would need to find 3rd party academic/scholarly/expert opinions expressing views as to COI on behalf of participants in a report, etc. Wikipedia is WP:NOT, therefore any conclusions you reach without reliable sources to back them up are WP:OR. Note, also, that conducting discussions privately and editing together based on conclusions you've reached together falls under WP:TAGTEAM. If your processes for determining that there is some form of conspiracy afoot are not transparent, they are purely your WP:POV. Of course, if there is mainstream sourcing questioning the motives for conclusions drawn from research, they will be easily found and can guide editors in establishing whether or not an expert's conclusion is suspect or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * JJ and Iryna Harpy, thanks for the ongoing comments. The reminder about BLPVIO is timely, and I've edited some of my remarks accordingly. When discussing possible financial COI, it's important to note that COI does not automatically cause bias, and even pointing out someone's bias is not necessarily defamation. Also I agree that it's unfortunate the discussion has gone so far down this road, when the more interesting scientific question is whether there's any baby in the VAN bathwater.


 * Iryna, I hope you agree that we had good intentions in moving this discussion from the article talk page to my talk page, and that the notice given at the article talk page was adequate. We're not trying to hide anything. But, thanks for pointing out the concern.


 * I think we all agree I need to do more reading before I'm in a position to contribute to the article. I hope my participation has been useful for the RfC, and I'm curious to see what conclusions are reached by the closing editor. JerryRussell (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I gave the impression that I disapproved. Not at all! I've understood the discussion to be in good faith, and with the integrity of the article's content in mind. Wikipedia is full of paradoxes. The constraints of good, responsible editing practices and being a public tertiary resource have been evident for a long time. Such conundrums have been discussed at length in various areas of Wikipedia, but there are no accepted solutions other than plodding on juggling editor discretion, good editing practices, and consensus. One can only hope that common sense prevails, but there's never any guarantee that an encyclopaedia anyone can edit is going to be an ideal venue to even begin to define common sense. In general, presumptions about the supposed sum total of human knowledge are ludicrous. The idea that there has only ever been one lump of knowledge amassed from one direction is self-serving... but that is still the overriding view, and we still predominantly deal with Anglophone sources... and Anglophone (AKA 'Western') sources are absolutely self-serving. The plutocracy may have moments of conflict when the economic pressure is on and maintaining the status quo of the social order is contingent on which methodology is required at any given time but, at the end of the day, we - the plebs - just feed on whatever scraps are thrown us that appeal. Yep, Machiavelli was a brilliant satirist (or not a satirist).


 * Okay, I'm really waffling on, so I'd best leave my rant as is without going further off topic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not "unfortunate" at all. The RfC really needs to stay focused (otherwise those kinds of discussions can traipse all over the landscape), and the discussion above helps resolve some questions you had. And Iryna probably feels a little better now.


 * Re your edit, I don't know that there was a real BLP problem there, as those are clearly your opinions, and we are not asserting anything in an article. I would point out that when you alter prior comments you should use the &lt;s> .. &lt;\s> and &lt;u> ..  &lt;\u> tags to indicate stricken and inserted material. E.g.: original text new text . ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JJ, I think Irinya's point was that the talk pages are subject to the same rules as the article pages, as far as the obligation to avoid defamation of living persons. I thought that under the circumstances, it was appropriate to delete the remarks as completely as possible. If the situation is egregious enough, admins can be called to delete the history as well, although hopefully my indiscretion doesn't rise to that level. Conversely, if you want to restore my initial remarks (with appropriate striking and underlining) I wouldn't revert you.


 * Also, thanks for the offer above to send me more materials to read. I did manage to get a copy of Uyeda 2009, and there's a lot more material to read on-line, but if I run against a road-block I'll let you know.


 * The article as it stands is pretty good really. After all this hubbub, I may just disappear without doing anything; unless I learn something interesting by studying the materials. JerryRussell (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No, no! stick around, you've already done more studying on this than the yahoos, and I would love to have someone around who actually reads the sources! BTW, check out the Papadopoulos 2015 source I just added. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I really do want to do the work, as I'm very curious to know if there's any possible way to forecast earthquakes here in the Cascadia subduction zone. Or, it would also be useful to be able to predict if there's Not going to be an earthquake here anytime soon. (whatever else you can say about Omerbashich, that's one angle about his approach that I like.)

Otherwise I'm going to have to stop procrastinating on another project: beef up my house! Helical foundation anchors? Better facilities for duck-and-cover? JerryRussell (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, definitely possible to forecast earthquakes in Cascadia (distinguished from more specific "prediction"): there will be earthquakes. Even big ones. Eventually. And when "The Big One" happens I will become famous as an earthquake predictor, right? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think anyone willing to do the reading should be encouraged to keep working on this topic. So long as any edits are undertaken in a thoughtful (preferably cautious), well-referenced manner, and the author(s) are willing to discuss conflicts openly, I believe updating and improvement of the material is valuable. Earthquake prediction is a subject of significant societal interest, and therefore an encyclopedic article on the subject is important. Unfortunately, I feel that any large contributions to the article on my part could be viewed as biased. While I am not in this exact field, I am a marine geophysicist, and I have taken classes from (and occasionally collaborated with) some of the best-known earthquake scientists alive today. I have mostly tried to limit myself to copy editing and conflict resolution on the talk page.
 * In my *opinion*, the VAN debate distracts from the true state of the science. If anyone, anywhere could reliably predict earthquakes, most of the scientific community would be singing their praises and giving them awards and money and speaking invitations. Clearly, this has not happened. But the key words in that statement are 'reliably predict'. The standards used in defining the reliability of predictions are vital to determining success or failure. I think the article as it stands does a good job of emphasizing the importance of minimizing false alarms (the biggest problem with most precursor-based methods), and a fair job at distinguishing forecasting from prediction. The insistence of VAN supporters on expanding its coverage and emphasizing so-called successes in this article is annoying. Given the lack of recognizable success in the form of indisputable predictions, or support of the method by the majority of researchers in the field, or the adoption of the method by actual governments and policymakers, VAN does not need any more coverage in this article than the other (also largely unsuccessful) approaches, such as characteristic earthquakes and seismicity patterns. But I recognize that I come to this conclusion based on experience in the field, information presented at conferences, and having talked with people from the USGS, the GSC (Canada) and various Japanese agencies. Finding a concise way of presenting the cite-able information that supports my general knowledge would be very impractical, and would be problematic from a POV standpoint, because I would be working backwards from the conclusion to the sources. Much better to have fresh eyes and minds doing the decision making (for which I thank all of you non-geophysicists who are bravely tackling the technical vocabulary, complex math, and questionable statistics of scientific journal articles).Elriana (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elriana, for the encourging words. (Jerry, take note!) I would also encourage you to dive in, as your opinions on all this are likely as good, and certainly better founded, as anyone else's. I don't see why you feel your edits might be viewed as biased.  Even if you didn't actually edit the article there is still a lot of value in good assessments on the talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Seen you soon, also edits on Paul Nehlen‎
Hey! I was actually out there last month training for how to unmuck the west coast when Cascadia goes bananas and pull you guys out of burning buildings and such.

Anyway, about the Nehlen article, I reverted an edit you did there. Please review WP:BLP. For legal and ethical reasons, Wikipedia has pretty strict rules about what goes into a biography of a living person, and it's probably going to take more than a local newspaper article to meet those. If you have any questions, feel free to respond on my talk. Timothy Joseph Wood 00:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I have heard stories locally about all these training exercises going on here. People I know are finding it hard to believe that FEMA would put so much effort into this (including rumors of food stockpiling), when the earthquake is expected to happen randomly sometime in the next 200 to 500 years. Do you know of any information as to whether FEMA's efforts in this regard are proportional to other preparations for natural hazards?


 * Regarding the Nehlen article, I'd like to point out first of all that it was Wisconsinnative1984 who created the section in question, and that you reviewed the page and made an edit after he inserted the section. Maybe you didn't see it, but I assumed you did, and had effectively given your blessing. So I spent half an hour trying to restore some semblance of NPOV balance to the section.


 * While we're addressing conduct issues, I'll also declare the extent of my COI regarding Nehlen -- which is that I'd been telling a person I know about my Wiki editing adventures, and she commented to me that she thought the Nehlen article was very biased. She was interested in the issue because there's a "Dump Ryan" movement which is fundraising on a national basis for Nehlen. So, I told this person that I'd see what I could do.


 * The topic of the section, Dan Backer, is apparently running this national fundraising campaign. So this is a big deal, the issue is not going away, expect more media reports about it quickly.


 * More discussion probably coming on the article talk page. JerryRussell (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Katrina opened the eyes of a lot of people as to how unprepared we were for coordinating a national response to a major disaster. As far as I understand, it is intentionally disproportional, because Katrina was so badly executed.


 * I realize you're a little new, so I'd be happy to talk about potential additions to the article on the article talk. Feel free to ping me there. I'm watching the article, but there's a few things going on nationally and internationally right now, so I may be distracted. Timothy Joseph Wood  00:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religious views of Adolf Hitler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John S. Conway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Christ myth theory page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=736820685 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F736820685%7CChrist myth theory%5D%5D Ask for help])

citation tool for Google Books
Do you use:
 * Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books: Converts a Google Books URL into cite book. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi IP96, no I haven't been using that tool. I open the much-derided visual edit window, and use the automatic citation tool. It's quick and convenient. What's your recommendation? JerryRussell (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not up to date on all the features of the "automatic citation tool". For a "Google Books" URL, the custom built tool may be better IMO - open the tool web-page and paste the Google Books URL, then press load. Per the "Other fields:" input box - enter quote=hello world, then press "Make Citation". (see also Help:Citation tools). 96.29.176.92 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the tip, I'll try it next time. According to the 'Help' article, the tool I've been using is TWL/Citoid. JerryRussell (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Citoid does not appear to use the page number in the Google Books URL and incorrectly expands the month and day to 01 01 if Google Books does not supply those values. note: when viewing a Google Books page, to get a URL with the page number currently being viewed, press the link button in the tool bar to get an updated URL with the page number. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I created some refs with page numbers recently, but I didn't use google books for those; I suppose it would be a nice enhancement if the links went straight to google book pages. I did at least fix the bad date. JerryRussell (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For non-copyrighted books, cropped images can also be manually linked in the quote field (cropping size can be adjusted by changing the crop values in the URL):
 * 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 96.29.176.92 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Cites
Many positions accept the historical existence of a human being who called himself Jesus. These include the positions of Remsburg, Frazer, John Robertson, Herbert George Wood and GA Wells.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC) & link 14:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * see Christ myth theory


 * Key points from reliable secondary sources.


 * Per Bart Ehrman and Doherty apud Ehrman


 * Jesus "mythicism" can be defined as [...] that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction. (Doherty ap. Ehrman)


 * Jesus "mythicism" can be defined as [...] that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure. (Doherty ap. Ehrman)


 * Jesus "mythicism" can be defined as ...[that if Jesus did exist], he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. (Ehrman)


 * Ehrman, Bart (2012) Did Jesus Exist, p. 12.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC) & update 07:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I created Wikiquote:Christ myth theory § Key points of proponents noted in Secondary sources
 * I have recently updated the above noted Wikiquote section. - 96.29.176.92 (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thompson
Per, Thompson makes several clarifications in the comments section. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Bible and Interpretation - Is This Not the Carpenter: A Question of Historicity?
 * The Bible and Interpretation - Is This Not the Carpenter’s Son? A Response to Bart Ehrman

Hitler & Islam
"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood. It is a tragedy that France has consistently degenerated in the course of centuries and that her upper classes have been perverted by the Jews. France is now condemned to the pursuit of a Jewish policy."

Here is the true QUOTE, wrote by Hitler in his political testament : https://archive.org/stream/PoliticalTestamentOfAdolfHitler/PTAH_djvu.txt

Stop denying this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Christ myth theory - Citations section
Per Talk:Christ myth theory § Citations Demonstrating Scholarly Support for the CMT I found one for Thompson. 96.29.176.92 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This section has many excellent quotes.

Suggestion
Hi Jerry. Look, I'm sorry if I have made you angry. Please note that I, too, am pretty exasperated by some of the proceedings, but I think we should be able to sort it out, on the basis of shared purposes, etc. (Note that I have no such expectation re our SPE, for lack of shared purpose.)

I would like to offer a suggestion. I see that (like many other editors) you often have several edits in quick succession. While that certainly doesn't hurt your edit count, it can obfuscate what is going on, and where. I think there is much to said for composing one's remarks off-line, giving them a bit of rest for reflection, and then pasting them in. It also avoids confusion where someone starts replying before your comments are settled.Of course, I am a little swayed by my context, where I am often interrupted, but still, you might find off-line composing a little less frenetic.


 * That's a pretty good suggestion, especially here where we're often online and posting at the same time in the afternoon. Or in this case, where a little extra reflection before posting would be a good idea. JerryRussell (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Instead of going completely offline for composing, I'm trying to be more careful and reflective, and also waiting until you're done editing before jumping in. JerryRussell (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, slide rules are cool. I still use one (well, in theory). But I think we're giving away our age. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I ditched mine in ~1973, and never looked back. But it did get the job done. JerryRussell (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

copying/moving other people's comments
yes in my view it was tacky. in general it is bad form to move other people's comments without their permission. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I can certainly see the problem with moving. Copying doesn't seem so bad. But how about this: why don't we leave SageRad's thread open on the noticeboard, and just move the discussion beginning with "Bold suggestion: Rename/overhaul"? With your permission and Staszek Lim's, of course. I can check with bloodofox, too. JerryRussell (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård
FYI: - 96.29.176.92 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Compatibility Thesis
Ehrman-Price Debate #2: Price’s Opening Address at vridar.org: Per the comments section, see Tim Bos, he notes that Ehrman used the Compatibility Thesis to refute Mythicism in a recent debate with Price. Its utterly ridiculous, but is broadly parroted. — 96.29.176.92 (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Defining of "fringe" in a more constrained way
... has obviously failed, as it must in a place where the power is controlled by a group of people who oppose this, similar to how governance is dominated by oligarchy. Established power does not want to be called out or limited, and will do what needs to be done to block reforms like that. Meanwhile, i'm being pilloried at WP:AE in part for what i spoke in the threaded discussion there about the fringe guideline. Apparently it's evidence sufficient to add up to a siteban for me because i speak critically about patterns i see within Wikipedia. What's the best description of such a dynamic if it were a state governance setup? I'd say it's not the best nor is it a real participatory democracy, but more like the appearance of a place where ideas matter but in which there is a predetermined outcome. Anyway, cheers. I loved the ideals of Wikipedia but can't stand the practice that i ended up seeing. What really happens is so far different from what's described by the policies. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you go, SageRad. I suppose it remains to be seen, how long I last around here. This so-called consensus in which dissidents from the consensus are lined up and shot at dawn, is not my idea of a "consensus". My strategy is to try to avoid being a "time sink" for other editors, especially if I'm obviously in the minority. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize this site for what it is. JerryRussell (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Jerry, fwiw, this place is a clue-ocracy - that is really, really accurate. The one thing that is not stated in that amazingly potent little essay, is that long term happiness and productivity is heavily dependent on self-awareness and self-control. You cannot be clueful if you don't have self-insight and cannot really listen to what other people are saying.  If you are self-aware, can listen, and really understand the mission and the policies and guidelines, things will be OK.
 * Folks like SageRad - who has a good soul, I believe - ultimately self-destruct here. He has always been very transparent about what he is doing here and has been very clearly focused on his mission - straight as an arrow.  He was so transparent about it that it was clear to me within 5 days (!) of him really getting started here that his approach - his idea of what WP is - was not what we are up to here and would lead to a bad end for him.  Please read this exchange between SageRad and me on about his 5th day really working here, and especially my last remark there.  (see how consistent what he wrote there, is with this from just a couple of days ago and with his OP above?)   Sage imported a whole bunch of "sociological analysis" into his idea of what he would be doing here, and how he treated other editors, sources, and content --  and he has not been able to see that this is inappropriate and doesn't work here.  That approach led him pretty inevitably to his current situation.  If you read down his talk page from the exchange above, you will see that lots of people tried to warn him off his path.  He didn't listen, and called them censors, bullies, and McCarthyists.
 * you have been here less than a year. You will figure this place out and work toward the mission under the policies and guidelines, with others, with self-insight and self-control, or not (or somewhere in the middle which is what most of us do:) ).
 * WP is a human creation and like all human creations it has its flaws.  But people like SageRad who self-destruct, always complain like SageRad does above; they cannot see their own role  in what happened to them - how their own behavior and their own approach to WP was flawed.  I am writing here to tell you that.  You can listen or not, of course. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog -- looking over my brief conversation with SageRad, one thing that strikes me is the inappropriateness of the shooting squad metaphor. Wikipedia is just a website. Sorry about the over-intensity. Thanks for visiting my page, and sharing your thoughts.


 * Do you have any opinion about who is in the wrong, and who is violating policy, at the Earthquake prediction article? I feel that I've been part of a consensus of at least 4 editors arguing against JJ, who is a long-term editor. And I think we're interpreting policy correctly, and JJ is completely in the wrong. But I don't want to take JJ to AN/I, partly because I appreciate his expertise, but also because I'm worried about the boomerang. And it's possible that the rest of us are the ones who don't really get the policy.


 * I appreciated your short visit to that page and your admonition to fix it, but it hasn't been possible to make any significant progress. I'd like to get your viewpoint on whether I've been the one most guilty of wasting others' time, as well as my own. JerryRussell (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked it over briefly.  I would have to dig into the sources myself to really get involved and I don't have enough interest to put that time in.  In general, it seems to me that the discussion there is focused on trees and as I noted, the forest needs to be addressed.   If I were working on this I would get everyone focused on how to get the relative weight of the sections corrected.  That ~should~ lead to an agreement to reduce the weight for the VAL stuff, and then you could focus on the discussion on what should be said in the much reduced space... maybe that would work.   But this is not an ANI thing but rather a DR thing...   Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcoming comments at "Ask a seismologist", which take the edge off of IP202's implication that scientists commenting on WP are low-status. We are really lucky if he will comment, and hopefully everyone will show appreciation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Letters of Paul


Interesting geographical elaboration. - 96.29.176.92 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * IP96, for more information on the circumstances that actually enabled the remarkable spread of Christianity during the time of Paul's ministry, take a look at these two books: Creating Christ and Operation Messiah.


 * Of these two, I think "Operation Messiah" is pretty clearly a Wikipedia reliable source: PhD academic author, very reputable publisher (Vallentine Mitchell). It would be down-weighted for bias and fringe views, and because the author is writing outside his field. But it certainly meets minimum criteria, although Jeppiz wouldn't like it. "Creating Christ" is written by "amateur" authors, and is from Crossroad Press, which is more of a popular publisher. I'm not sure if it would pass muster for use at Wikipedia at all anywhere, what do you think? JerryRussell (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

How it works
Jerry. The Terms of Use say:

The community – the network of users who are constantly building and using the various sites or Projects – are the principal means through which the goals of the mission are achieved. The community contributes to and helps govern our sites. The community undertakes the critical function of creating and enforcing policies for the specific Project editions (such as the different language editions for the Wikipedia Project or the Wikimedia Commons multi-lingual edition).

it also says:

The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.

This is the en-wiki project, governed by the en-wiki community.

The relevant policy bits here are:

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Policies_and_guidelines
 * WP:BLOCK


 * Thanks for this information, Jytdog. It looks like the conversation will probably be continued at Meta as per the brief discussion at SageRad's talk page. JerryRussell (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

CMT pop


Jefferey Querner


 * 1) Ask them if they have ever studied the topic.
 * 2) Ask them which scholars they most align themselves with.
 * 3) Call them to account for the rise of Christianity without a historical Jesus.
 * 4) Last, in the case of reference to ancient parallels, ask them if they have ever read the parallel texts.
 * Here’s my own answers to the four points you brought up:

1. I have been studying Christianity for about 14 years. I believed in a historical Jesus for about half that time (as well as before I started studying the subject). I have read over 100 scholarly books on the topic and own a bookcase full of books dedicated to that topic alone. I changed my mind not because of any scholarship but because I discovered the Sepher Toledot Yeshu, which placed Jesus in the 1st century B.C. Seeing the earliest version of the Toledot was not derivative of the gospels and finding parallel confirmation in other sources such as Epiphanius and Mara Bar Serapion, I came to the conclusion that Jesus really lived in the first century B.C. and that the gospel Jesus was a myth based on the church’s reaction to the First Jewish-Roman war.

2. The scholars I most align myself with are G.R.S. Mead, Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty, John Dominic Crossan, Delbert Burkett, Richard Friedman, and Israel Finkelstein. I am also a fan of Rudolf Bultmann, Alvar Ellegard, Robert Funk, Albert Schweitzer, Paula Fredriksen, William G. Dever, Helmut Koester, Randel McCraw Helms, Joseph B. Tyson, Robert Eisenman, Margaret Barker, Hyam Maccoby and Joseph Campbell. Yes, I know Crossan believes in a historical Jesus, but that doesn’t mean that his scholarship, along with that of the Jesus Seminar, hasn’t done a great deal of undercutting of the historical underpinnings of the gospel Jesus by explaining why some 80% of Jesus’ sayings could not or probably do not go back to him. It really should not be at all surprising that people who decide to dedicate their lives to studying Christianity would have a bias against mythicism. Most Biblical scholars start off as Biblical Literalists who want to study the Word of God and eventually come around to the truth that the Bible is a human work full of contradictions and interpolations, so it’s hardly surprising that the idea that Jesus never existed would be a bridge too far.

lost-history.com/list

3. That’s easy. Just look at the epistles, excluding the second century Pastorals, and you can see that nothing in them identifies Jesus as a first century itinerant healer or the originator of the teachings being promulgated. Jesus’ “brothers” in Mark’s gospel can be shown to be references to famous first century Galilean figures, showing it to be a story of fiction and not a mythologized bibliography. The canonical texts were chosen in lieu of the decision to regard the Apostolic Church as founded by the gospel Jesus. Other apocryphal texts such as the Didakhe fail to mention Jesus a itinerant healer/preacher as well and the The Sherpherd of Hermas, despite being immense, amazingly fails to even refer to Jesus by name! Other Gnostic texts like Gospel of Judas, which portrays Judas as Jesus’ twin and the only person to truly understand him, are obviously meant to be read as fiction. As to the credibility of a religion starting without a founder, most scholars generally agree that Judaism did not really originate with Moses but came about much later, probably with the canonization of the Bible during Ezra’s time. Apart from that, did Hinduism need a historical originator? Neither Buddha nor Zoroaster can be pinned down to a particular time period with any certainty. Just lately a Buddhist shrine in Nepal was dated 300 years before the generally accepted date for Buddha. Finally, one must ask about the historical likelihood that a localized peasant sect could grow into what became Christainity without overtaking a larger movement, such as the Essenes, in the process. Are there any other religions known in the world that began with someone as low on the totem pole as a Galilean peasant? I think my own theory, that Jesus can be identified with a priest from the Onias dynasty, which owned the rights to the Temple Mount before they were ousted from power, does better to account for how a religious movement could maintain the kind of early popularity necessary to become a major religion.

4. I have read the parallel texts and have written extensively on them. I should add that I do agree that Osiris and Mithras in particular are often overblown and mischaracterized by mythicists. Mithras did not die and come back and Osiris’ resurrection is done in a way that does not particularly parallel Jesus. Mythicists should instead focus their attention to Sumerian and other Mesopotamian texts, whose Biblical parallels with the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man, Cain and Abel, Noah’s Ark, and the death and resurrection of the fertility god are undeniable. I am always shocked at how little is known among Biblical scholars about the Mesopotamian texts with Biblical parallels considering they really should be required reading for anyone serious about studying the Bible. Ezekiel places the dying-and-rising god Tammuz as being worshiped by women at the Jerusalem Temple itself. If linking a dying-and-rising god to the time of Ezekiel’s composition isn’t good enough because it isn’t close enough to the first century A.D., we can look to Jerome, who said that “From Hadrian’s time [135 A.D.] until the reign of Constantine, for about 180 years…Bethlehem, now ours, and the earth’s, most sacred spot…was overshadowed by a grove of Tammuz, which is Adonis, and in the cave where the infant Messiah once cried, the paramour of Venus was bewailed.” Are we to believe the same pagans who persecuted Christianity stole the site and rededicated it to a much older god who just so happened to also be depicted as a shepherd and a fisherman, whose name Tammuz means “True Son”, and whose Eucharistic meal consisted of bread and wine, all from within a town that just coincidentally means “House of Bread”? The talisman depicting Orpheus becoming an avatar of the god Bacchus by being crucified beneath the seven planets, as shown on the cover of Freke and Gandy’s “The Jesus Mysteries,” is proof positive of correspondence with Christianity. Finally, I believe pretty much all Orthodox Jews would take issue with the assumption that the authors of the New Testament were “thoroughly Jewish” considering some verses such as blood becoming wine or Paul wishing that the “men of the circumcision” would just go all the way and castrate themselves. The New Testament itself is written in Greek, not Herbew or Aramaic. Plenty of non-mythicist scholars have drawn parallels between the teachings attributed to Jesus and the Greek philosophies of Cynicism and Stoicism.


 * 1) Have you ever read any of the actual myths (as opposed to summaries in mythicist books)?
 * 2) If you were to contact any random professor of ancient history at a secular university and asked them if there is enough evidence to believe that Jesus was historical, what do you think they would say?
 * 3) Can you name one Josephus scholar who believes that Josephus did not mention Jesus and that the Testamonium Flavianum is a complete forgery?
 * 4) Why do mythicists claim that certain gods/heroes were virgin born when the myths say that they were conceived in intercourse?
 * 5) Why should ancient documents be discounted as historical evidence if they are considered to be scripture for a religious group?

1. Reading about mythology has been a hobby of mine for over 20 years, so much so that I consider myself an amateur mythologist, especially in regards to ancient Near East mythology. I have a Masters in English Literature, took courses on Arthurian legend, and I did my thesis on the different stages of mythological development.

2. I would assume that they would tell you that the question is beyond the scope of ancient history in general and that you should contact someone who has researched the historical evidence behind that specific question.

3. Josephus scholars who believed the Testimonium to be a complete forgery include: Schurer, Niese, Norden, Zeitlin, Lewy, Juster, von Dobschutz, Karl Kautsky, S.G.F. Brandon, Charles Guignebert, and Twelftree.

4. The question brings an erroneous assumption. It is equivalent to asking “Why do Christians say Jesus was virgin born when the Gospel of Mark says that his mother believed her son to a mortal crazy person?” (Mark 3:21). The answer to both questions is that different sources provide contradictory answers. I could bring up Perseus’ mother, who was impregnated by a shower of golden light, but really the whole argument misses the point. The motif of virgin birth is symbolic of single motherhood. The Jewish tradition, as handed down by the Talmud, the Toledot and Celsus make a great deal about Jesus being a bastard, and this motif, whether historical or not, is in turn implied by the single motherhood in Mark, the fact that the four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy are notable for having questionable purity, and the saying recorded by the Gospel of Thomas: “Whoever knows the father and the mother will be called the child of a whore.”

In any case, the virgin birth motif is hardly the most important shared theme. The dying-and-rising god Dumuzi, or Tammuz, was called both a Shepherd and a Fisherman, he was killed and raised under “the great apple tree” just as Jesus was said to have been crucified on the Tree of Life in Eden, the festival of his death is at the same time as the Jewish Festival of the Booths and the festival of his resurrection is marked him his name on the Jewish calendar, he had a sacrament of bread and water similar to the bread and wine sacrament of Communion (plus his sister is a wine goddess and later iterations of the dying-and-rising god like Dionysus would use wine instead of water), he guarded the gates of heaven similar to St. Peter and only allowed the Kassite Adam, named Adapa, to enter heaven only after Adapa sympathized with his death, he was associated with the serpent and his companion was associated with the same serpent pole (asklepian/caduceus) that Moses used for healing and that Jesus referenced as a symbol of his resurrection, the Song of Solomon is made up of his sex poetry, he was ritually mourned by women at the Jerusalem Temple, and Jerome claimed that the shrine to Jesus in Bethlehem was at one time dedicated to Dumuzi-Adonis instead. Dumuzi’s father Enki created an immortal land like Eden, got sick after eating a “forbidden fruit”, was healed by a rib goddess, gave Dumuzi’s wife the Sumerian mi “the Knowledge of Good and Evil”, and built the ark that survived the flood.

5. The Gospels and epistles are not discounted as historical documents because they are religious documents. The degree of historicity afforded various statements in the Bible depends on how it accords with the contradicting details in other books from the Bible, reported facts in historical documents, and metaphorical fictions in mythological documents. Although Luke claims to be writing history, the author of Mark and Matthew make no similar claim, so it is the reader that is working under the assumption that the author intended those gospels to be historical non-fiction.

96.29.176.92 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC) & update 04:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki
Please do not use the shorthand 'Wiki' to refer to Wikipedia. You have done this more than once in the discussion of an RFC on earthquake prediction. The use of the shorthand Wiki to mean Wikipedia is very confusing, because there are many wikis and only one Wikipedia, and it is not always clear from context that you mean the one real Wikipedia. Please do not use the shorthand 'Wiki'. At best, it doesn't help, and it can show laziness. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, and a bad habit on my part. A new year's resolution: never to do it again. JerryRussell (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ralph Ellis (author) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ralph Ellis (author) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ralph Ellis (author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ellis
Ellis can no longer post to his talk page. As a courtesy to him, please don't post there. If you feel like answering my questions, feel free to do it on my talk page - if you don't, fine. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikia
Per Wikia you could create a new Wiki with one or more "articles" (also called "pages" in Wiki parlance).

Examples:
 * Wikia:Religion:Christ myth theory —
 * Wikia:Pagan:Jesus as Myth —

Per RationalWiki: Wiki § Wikia: 74.138.106.1 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Originally called WikiCities and currently branded as "FANDOM powered by Wikia", it hosts over a hundred thousand wikis.
 * Ad-filled
 * The biggest wiki is colors

Going on Wikibreak
It has become clear to me that the goals that I have sought to achieve here, can only be realized to a very limited extent, and at great cost in terms of time and emotional energy.

Thanks to for the suggestion that Wikia might be a better outlet. I am also very interested in www.infogalactic.com. They have some very interesting ideas about structuring the database to allow multiple points of view, and levels of RS, to coexist on the system. It remains to be seen whether they can attain critical mass to become a credible alternative; and also whether they can transcend their alt-right origins to become a general resource.

For now, of course, Wikipedia is the default go-to on the Internet for encyclopedia-style information.

At Doug Weller's talk page, I said "I think I'm done with Wikipedia editing for a very, very long time. Trying to get fair treatment for minority views (aka 'fringe') is a form of self-flagellation that I can do without. That was a bit self-indulgent and theatrical, and I probably shouldn't have said it.

replied "As we have worked together in (I think!) improving Wikipedia,I would be a little sad to see you go." That's very kind of you to say, JJ, and I really appreciate it. If you ever need me for anything, just post a note here on my talk page, and the system will ping me with an email.

As to how long my Wikibreak will be, let me just say that for a person locked into a negative addiction, even a day or two can seem like a very long time. My exile is self-imposed and I reserve the right to terminate it and resume editing at any time, for as long as Wikipedia admins and community will allow it.

I have given up all hope of successful earthquake prediction, and the tie-down brackets connecting my house to its foundation have just been installed. I should be ready to ride out the Cascadia Earthquake in style, when it happens. Good! -JJ

JJ -- about our article, perhaps you might be interested to take a look at The Exodus and The Exodus: sources and parallels. This pair of articles was the outcome of the discussion I was involved with at Talk:The Exodus. As I said, I consider that my opponents won the content dispute at 'The Exodus', but the end result is not too unfavorable. The main article is very short, and represents almost exclusively the mainstream view. The subsidiary article is almost as long, and includes some so-called "fringe" analysis. I think the EQ prediction article would be much more readable, and serve all users better, if it were organized along similar lines.

And, about Ellis -- Our wikipedia article about Ice age says "The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age." Following this summary, the article presents a couple of lame theories marked. The section Negative Feedback Processes, about mechanisms that might end an ice age and cause a return to interglacial conditions, is similarly inconclusive and poorly cited.

Ellis proposes a simple and robust mechanism, that low atmospheric CO2 at the end of an ice age leads to desertification and dust storms. The dust darkens the glacial cover, resulting in increased absorption of solar insolation, and ending the ice age.

Do you know if this idea has already been considered and rejected by specialists? So far, in the discussions about Ellis's idea, no editor has had anything to say aside from ad hominem insults. JerryRussell (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I said that he hadn’t been cited in peer reviewed articles. That is not an ad hominem. For that matter, neither is the factual statement that he has no relevant qualifications, something else I said. Doug Weller  talk 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, our Wikipedia article on Argument from authority says: "It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.[23] As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority." Following the link to Ad hominem we find "Ad hominem... is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself." Your statements about Ellis and his article are true in themselves. But when directed towards the value of Ellis's theory, they are irrelevant and ad hominem.
 * WP:RS says that there is a spectrum of reliability of sources. As a peer reviewed scientific article in an Elsevier journal, Ellis's article seems to stand somewhere within the realm of RS. I agree that its standing in the spectrum would be higher if Ellis had a relevant PhD or academic position, or if it had higher citation index.
 * Do you have anything to say about Ellis's actual argument? I assume that my talk page is a safe space for such a discussion? JerryRussell (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So my comment about his not being cited isn't an ad hominem. Both comments are relevant to how we determine reliable sources. It isn't enough to be peer reviewed. We have rejected other peer reviewed articles in the past because their authors didn't have the requisite qualifications, and certainly if no one with the qualifications has discussed it we would normally avoid it. That's the way we work, and we don't consider it an ad hominem arguement to say someone isn't qualified. Just as saying that a surgeon doesn't have the qualifications to diagnose mental illness is not an ad hominem. I think you are stretching the word "attribute" too far. A short-sighted person has that as an attribute, but it's not an ad hominem to say that (without glasses) he wouldn't be a reliable witness about something that happened too far for him to see it. And no, I'm not familiar with the science involved so I'm not the person to ask about it. Papers like that need to be critiqued by someone with a well-rounded knowledge in depth of the field, a layman might miss something that an expert wouldn't. Doug Weller  talk 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that your comments are relevant to how we determine reliable sources. The question of whether Ellis's article represents "the truth" is a completely different question, which we as Wikipedia editors really aren't supposed to talk about. It's not even clear to me whether this conversation is allowable under WP:FORUM and WP:USERTALK on my own talk page.
 * Ellis's paper has been published in a reputable journal, cited in Forbes, and is one of the most frequently downloaded articles in the field. Nevertheless, as far as I know, no qualified scientist has deigned to say a word about it in any blog, much less a peer reviewed article. Maybe it's because Ralph has stumbled on an "inconvenient truth"?


 * As a guy with a PhD in an unrelated science, and a basic education in physics, I can't see anything wrong with the theory. But I'd be the first to admit I'm not a specialist. JerryRussell (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

which is exactly why we should only represent the most significant and widely accepted knowledge on topics, which are found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources (the encyclopedia is not a directory, research development platform or novel hypothesis promotion). Of course, if a best seller covers fringe topics but also has plenty of reviews (positive and negative) an article about it is very acceptable on notability grounds. — Paleo Neonate  – 20:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is what I've found confusing about the policies. Based on a naive newbie reading of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, I would have thought that all views covered in reliable sources such as Elsevier journals would eligible to be included in the encyclopedia. It turns out that there's a whole string of additional requirements regarding the authors' qualifications, views on other topics, citation index, and so forth. These issues become topics for extended debates among the users. I noticed another debate over whether old newspapers were reliable sources for claims on faith healings, and it looks like the editors who wanted to include the faith healings were winning, even though IMHO WP:MEDRS would apply in that case. So I'd say the policies are very unclear, and the debates are never ending. JerryRussell (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * When we talk about citations for something like this we mean citations in academic publications. The Forbes "guest commentary" (as it's described) is by Chuck DeVore who has no qualifications and clearly is not a supporter of the mainstream view on climate change. Being discussed by DeVore, who seems to be a climate change denier doesn't give Ellis any kudos. Your comment about "an inconvenient truth" could be seen as a slur on climate scientist who do support the mainstream, don't you think? You're suggesting that they are hiding the truth, after all. The policies are not unclear. There are some blurry edges, but if you want to go to RSN to find out, feel free. Doug Weller  talk 21:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I keep meaning to ask, do you think we should use his King Jesus ideas? Doug Weller  talk 21:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Doug, I did not mean to slur anyone. I was merely making a sociological observation about possible political constraints of mainstream climate scientists.
 * I'm going on Wikibreak and I don't normally edit climate science articles anyhow, so I won't be taking this to RSN. I do believe there would be lively debate if I did so, but I could be wrong.
 * It looks to me like very few if any editors would support using Ralph's King Jesus ideas in any articles. I was hoping he could have his own article, but it looks like the editors aren't even buying that yet. And I had the idea that there could be an article on "Roman Origins of Christianity". But since that entire theory has no academically qualified advocates, I'm afraid there won't be enough RS to write that article. JerryRussell (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the second arbitrary identation break in a row. I admit that Wikipedia can be a complex system. After this post I will not pursue this discussion to avoid running in circles (but am always glad to try to help on request). I'll end with a comment about the wikibreak notice: I assume that you're not threatening to leave as a pressure game, but that you feel an impass exists and are considering to spend your time elsewhere. This is respectable, although I would only like to remind that there are many less contentious topics and articles that are much easier to work on. Of course, if the main goal was to promote alternative views, Wikipedia is indeed not the place for it (no matter how tempting because of its strong presence). You already mentioned that other wikis are available, some more adequate for this, along with the concern about them being considered less credible and less commonly used as reference. I personally think that these stricter policies we have are also what makes Wikipedia a more popular reference that is trusted by many; although it has its fair share of criticism it is also commonly praised as a good encyclopedia. Its users must also learn basic critical thinking skills and to systematically go further than the in-article text to verify references when they can and assess reliability. Sites like Google and Facebook are now systematically linking to Wikipedia and/or providing article summaries. It's imperfect but works and hoaxes inserted by editors are rapidly corrected when exposed. If you've been around a while, you may also have noticed that its policies have become better defined and more strongly enforced over time (a particularly obvious area being BLPs). As it became one of the most consulted, better known and fastest growing sites, there were pressing needs to address which prompted those changes to keep the general quality acceptable. These changes and experiments are still ongoing like WP:ACTRIAL, RFCs, arbitration cases for behavioral issues, etc. All that makes Wikipedia stand apart from indiscriminate directories, sensationalist tabloids and "history" TV documentaries, etc. Assessing what sources are reliable is also a growing challenge with the advent of predatory journals and indiscriminate indexes. Fortunately we can request help at WP:RSN as previously mentioned. By working with others for help and to reach consensus while attempting to avoid wasting too much time on details or reiterating old threads, the system generally works. We all make mistakes and if we accept that and move on, progress occurs (see my ignorance here today). If you're leaving, I wish you farewell. As far as I know, you're not banned and can return anytime. In any case, perhaps that the way Wikipedia works can still result in a positive personal learning experience. — Paleo Neonate  – 22:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I assume that you're not threatening to leave as a pressure game, but that you feel an impass exists and are considering to spend your time elsewhere. Yes, that's right. My main purpose was to leave a message for IP74 and JJ about my intentions, before disappearing.
 * If JJ has any views about the 'truth' of Ellis's theory, I would be curious about that, because I came to trust his instincts about science. He commented rather extensively at the AfD and I didn't want to engage him there for fear of seeming tendentious. I do also appreciate the conversation with you, PaleoNeonate, and with Doug. JerryRussell (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Jerry: perhaps in hindsight you realize that your "ad hominem insults" is itself ad hominem? As to Ellis' concept/theory: I think there has been work done on the effects of dust on glaciation (or deglaciation), but as I haven't followed the climate stuff for many years I can't really say. Nor whether anyone has specifically considered his claim. But it is unlikely any "qualified scientist" has bothered, as he is going against a whole lot of established science. (I see that one of the articles his article links to suggests that CO2 is not cause of global warming, but the result. Completely incredible.) You should keep in mind that simply being published in a journal (no matter how "reliable" or respected) is NOT evidence of "truth", but only a presentation for consideration. Neither Ellis nor his theory seems to have any significance or notability, not even to the point of being considered.  Aside, that is, from the hothouse of GW deniers. Which is generally, and properly, discredited. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi JJ, the 'ad hominem' article also states: "in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious..."; Doug gave a good example that a nearsighted person is generally not a credible eyewitness. My hindsight is to realize that I haven't yet completely mastered the art of writing in a way that conveys my meaning without offending anyone. I could've just stated "no one has addressed the truth or falsehood of Ellis's theory", which would have been much less provocative.
 * I did spend considerable time & effort getting up to speed on the EQ prediction literature, and you also invested substantial time in that process. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance.
 * Regarding PaleoNeonate's speculation about "threatening to leave as a pressure game", I realized that in fact I felt the opposite. I imagine that some editors might be happy to see me go, without even needing an ANI case. Part of my motivation in posting was to let those editors know that my absence is not a sure thing. Which means I still have exaggerated ideas of my own importance, and also that I still care what happens here. Haha, I'm so confused :-) But, definitely going on break. JerryRussell (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Jerry: drop the stick. Your "ad hominem insults" comment, even if factual, is still "about the person". But it wasn't factual, and thus your comment is an ad hominem personal attack. Now I am sure you don't mean to go that way (right?), that your comment was just an unfortunate, unconsidered utterance. In that case you demonstrate your good-faith by embracing the fact of having erred, retracting your comment ( strike the text), apologize (as you did), and then leave it alone.  (In some traditions one is also expected to perform an act of penance, which demonstrates that one's apology isn't just empty verbiage.) To quibble about the matter undercuts the restoration of collegiality, and carries a whiff of wikilawyering.


 * I believe the problem that arose here was not due to any problem of conveying your meaning, but in the origin of that meaning. E.g.: why did you construe criticism of Ellis as "insults"? Why did you uncritically fall in with this idea that Doug (or any other editor) was being insulting, when his good reputation strongly suggests otherwise? You might find contemplation of those points to be worthwhile. Note that the art of thinking (which should precede writing) is largely a matter of understanding why we think certain things. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic areas of interest to you?
Hello Jerry, I found some of your work off Wikipedia interesting (particularly regarding the British Empire and the Irish Question, though I don't agree with your opposition to Marxism-Leninism. Lenin had no British links). You may find the following areas for investigation intriguing; the Grand Orient of Russia’s Peoples (whose members led the liberal February Revolution in Russia) and the fact that the last Secretary General of that group, Alexander Halpern, worked as a subversive spy for the Brits in the United States to get you into World War II (as part of British Security Co-ordination). The machinations of this group are laid out in the excellent book Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939–44. Obviously, the Empire is still up to its old tricks today with the likes of Christopher Steele trying to set the fires of a Russia vs. Anglophile America global conflict. Keep up the good work. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and could use some help.
Hi Jerry, I hope you have been doing well. I kind of hate to pull you back in here, but there's an issue at ANI (see this) where someone is claiming that despicable me ran you out of here. I could use your help here. Thanks. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In October 2019, I registered a new account under the name of Antipocalypse. I have replied at ANI under my new username, which I believe is compliant with wp:cleanstart and wp:validalt. Under the circumstances, however, the connection between my old & new accounts became obvious to other users. I am making this post to confirm that Antipocalypse and JerryRussell are one and the same, and that I still have password access to the old account. JerryRussell (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Herbert Wigwe
Hello, I saw your recent edits on Herbert Wigwe. The edits that you restored are the work of a long-term vandal who uses self-published sources to promote hoaxes about nonexistent people. For example, see this article that implicates the fictional Edwin Symonowicz in the Sandy Hook school shooting, or this bit of silly nonsense. I suggest googling "Edwin Symonowicz" to see more of this. It should be obvious from articles such as "Minister of Arts and Culture, Mrs Hannatu Musawa Resign Now!!!" that 9newsng isn't a credible source. Spicy (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Spicy,
 * Here's one more source connecting Wigwe to Symonowicz,
 * This article is written by Zekeri Idakwo. The one from 9newsng is by Deji Ogunsola. The two articles express the concept of Symonowicz' involvement in different words, indicating that these are two different sources.
 * No, it isn't obvious to me from the existence of amusing editorials, that 9 News Nigeria is not a credible source. It appears to be a prominent Nigerian TV outlet and news website with a wide variety of articles.
 * Aside from some sort of nativist racism, I can't see any reason to doubt that 9 News Nigeria is as reputable as any other mainstream media source. Which is to say, not very credible at all!! Substack and Medium authors are far more reliable in general. But I do recognize that is not how we roll at Wikipedia.
 * The other source given by this so-called "Vandal" is a book by Wigwe's long term business partner. I haven't yet been able to verify the reference, but now I'm curious enough to go buy the book and check it out. JerryRussell (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Spicy, I'm going to agree with you on this one.
 * I went and bought the book by Wigwe's business partner, and I couldn't find a word in it about Symonowicz, or 'Access Loan Programme' division. So, that reference didn't pan out.
 * The two other sources seem "reputable" enough. But frankly, I don't think this passes the smell test. If Access Bank had been in business since 2002, why would they suddenly establish a "Loan Programme" in 2018? Writing loans is what banks do, isn't it? And if they did start some sort of special loan program in 2018, why doesn't his business partner's book mention anything about it?
 * I'm going to let it go from Wikipedia. The controversy will rage on at Substack, I'm sure. JerryRussell (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your dedication. Spicy (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)