User talk:JimWae/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JimWae. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

- The elegance in footnote-source editing can covered a multitude of bad practice and sloppy scholarship. At American civil war I edited through the 'slavery' section, both for copy edit and replacing the elegant note coding system. Neither could be readily diagnosed by an editor scanning the article Edit function. It required two open frames to decipher the redundant citations and those misapplied to the text as written. My innovative convention resulted in two styles, which is discouraged for the sake of consistency and honoring the first-author.

- The key advantage of using coded cites is ease of editorship. On non-controversial pages with established cannons of literature, the editor can efficiently code in a note and bibliography source, minimizing key strokes for subsequent notes on the same author from the same source throughout the entire article. This becomes a problem if contributing editors cannot manage citations well, or where objectively there are no few authorities, the authorities contradict one another, or the author has written multiple volumes addressing multiple facets of the topic, such as is found in American history articles. In Chemistry, only one reliable source is needed to establish how many electrons are in one isotope or another. Not so easy to say which three politicians most benefitted and the three who were disadvantaged the most by the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the run-up to the Election of 1860.

- I mean to use nesting open-coded notes <ref>name, source-with-link, date, ISBN, page. Additional detail and discussion. '''See also.''' name, source source-with-link, date, ISBN, page. Additional detail and discussion.</ref>

Below is a sample of contrasting text and notes which would obtain with the clunkier-old-timy-looking convention. It does make the initial note-makers task more iterative. But it makes follow-on editor verification and consolidation easier. And it changes the focus from the article-as-sourced-document to article-as-reader-experience.

- The WP article can be a user platform from which a reader can drill down into a note at in-line references, then surf out onto the web into reliable sources nested there -- one-stop-shopping -- provided by the research of Wikipedia editors. -- Truly VALUE ADDED for a little coding inconvenience on the part of editors.

- Nesting multiple linked references. is used wherever possible, expanding Wikipedia as an online platform capable of sending the reader to other reading of interest. The focus of an inline footnote is not exclusively on the article sourcing. There is an additional attention to reader experience. Sources link online to expand their horizon on the subject. Each reader drills down in the subject by surfing out onto the internet -- using WP provided reliable sources.

- Alternate wikicode does three things. (a) Six notes to become three in the [box.6.b.1] and [box.6.b.2 versions shown. Instead of an inline note at the end of every sentence, all notes on the same topic in a paragraph can be more concisely shown at one inline note number -- an advantage lost in the alternative. (b) It avoids clutter at the inline citations where editors champion more than one source for the same statement. (c) Editors can relate alternative sources and detail, even make note of scholars in the field who do not pass the WP test for preponderance of the literature.

- This can reduce edit wars. It could allow contributions from editors who are otherwise roughly handled and shut out ONLY because the perspective of their source cannot be tacked onto the bottom of an article narrative section in -- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 12:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)a sort of annotated bibliographical listing. Instead, such contributors can be graciously welcomed in wiki-love with an expanded footnote (limit of five).

- It can generate more articles of interest. If an editor interested in a subject can see in a WP article -- at the same sentence three different sources, in the same paragraph seven, -- then there is the groundwork for a new article fork -- not a stub, but a short article meeting the requirements for a B class piece on the first draft. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

- At CSA my copyedit has the historiographical term "Five Civilized Tribes” in quotes and all-in-capitalized-words, incorporating a previous editor's quotes - signifying a term-of-art historiographically or the political term-of-the-times.

- Apart from direct quotes, narrative usage of "so-called" violates WP:ALLEGED. At Expressions of doubt we find in the box ‘’... supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ... [and explication, these terms] editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources.

- It is NOT meant to communicate the common usage of the words 'civilized' and 'tribe', meaning

- -NEITHER to imply (a) all other tribes are NOT "civilized"

- -NOR to imply that (b) THESE five tribes are not civilized.

- See ongoing Talk:Confederate States of America#"So-called" usage. I have found you persuasive before, could you tell me your reasoning for reinserting "so-called" in the article narrative? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I changed "so called" to "so-called" -- solely for grammatical reasons. I am quite content to omit it, or, if need be, put in a "known as the..." --JimWae (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I like your "known as the ..." -- because it might get the other editors to drop the "so-called" initiative. It's just not as concise as a non-collaborative piece would have turned out. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you that Lincoln was a christian of a some sort and so I reverted your edit. -- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 12:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SBU-SUNY.logo.2012.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Good job editing the Emancipation Proclamation page! However, I believe that the Emancipation Proclamation was a military policy, since it was issued to hamper the South's ability to fight the Civil War, along with the central idea of the doctrine of contraband. Would it be fine if I change the article to include the statement that the Emancipation Proclamation was a military order? Your opinion on this issue is much appreciated, -WillJefferson (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the EP. It was an order to the entire Executive branch - albeit during wartime. The article already emphasizes its military focus. It is true that Lincoln justified it as a war measure. --JimWae (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I already read it before, but thanks for answering.WillJefferson (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey do you think the Jesus article is ready for FAC? Since you made the most edits to the article, I might need your permission.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had been extended the same courtesy of notification before the 8-yr consensus on era notation was dispatched by a not-well-attended STRAW vote. I find the article still has other NPOV issues. For a start:

• The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, who is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.[28] A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural.[28]
  • The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly. (because also as polytheistic, incomprehensible, ...)
• Prior to the Enlightenment, the gospels were usually regarded as accurate historical accounts, but since then skeptics have emerged who question the reliability of the gospels and presuppose a distinction between the Jesus described in the gospels and the Jesus of history.[220]
  • Prior to the Enlightenment, the gospels were usually regarded as accurate historical accounts, but since then skeptics have emerged who question the reliability of the gospels and draw a distinction between the Jesus described in the gospels and the Jesus of history.

--JimWae (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Jim, please feel free to add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New York City. I noted your comment in the "Lead" section of the NYC Talk page. I believe delisting by a relatively unskilled editor was outrageous. It's not that I believe that this article needs reaffirmation with GA status, especially when geopolitical shenanigans like this seem to be operative. However, it's simply the principle which bothers me. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So you admit, in your response to me, that the Euler Diagram suffers the fallacy of equivalence. You admit that part of it uses agnostic as an adjective and then reinstate this fallacy after admitting it suffers an equivalence issue. What exactly, in your mind, justifies the use of a fallacy? Because I can assure you, it will not be logical. That's why they are called fallacies.

Where does the diagram represent agnosticism? If the union is defined as agnostic atheist, then clearly, the adjective meaning is being used and the blue region becomes nonsense, because one can't simply be an adjective. The diagram was produced by atheists that don't believe agnosticism even exists, hence why it's not represented in the diagram. That's hardly neutral. The diagram may not explicitly say agnosticism doesn't exist, but it's clearly designed to imply that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IIXVXII (talk • contribs) 06:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

But one can be AN agnostic, no? The old diagram was better & I have changed the caption --JimWae (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's not argue the intent of persons not present and/or unknown--JimWae (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, what is the 3rd agnostic alternative to 1. believing in the existence of a deity, but not claiming to know such exists & 2. rejecting belief that any deity exists, but not claiming to know if any exist or not?--JimWae (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If the unions were labelled atheistic agnostic & theistic agnostic, that would not imply none of atheism & theism & atheists & theists do not exist--JimWae (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. How can I take you serious when you revert to a previously problematic diagram. I shouldn't talk about people's motives when you insist upon displaying atheist propaganda? One cannot have an Euler diagram when the yellow region is agnostic the noun and the union is agnostic that adjective. That is obviously the fallacy of equivalence and the fallacy of ambiguity. You offer no logical reason why you continue to support these obvious fallacies. Having something isn't better than nothing when that something is fallacious. IIXVXII (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If the unions were labelled atheistic agnostic & theistic agnostic, that would not imply none of atheism & theism & atheists & theists do not exist----JimWae (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the comments here --JimWae (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you name the people who made the diagram? On what basis do you determine their position? Actually the maker of the worse one identifies as agnostic.--JimWae (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I like this one. It's humorous and gives explanations that common people can follow plus do you know of any persons that actively self-describe as gnostic theist (the theist position assumes gnostic), gnostic (usage there is commonly people that follow the Kabbalah) or gnostic atheist (they are Atheists, damn it!)? Alatari (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's assume the situation that some deity exists that may provide knowledge of it's existence. Say Santa Claus. What is the difference between the agnostic that has never heard of this Santa Claus and has no knowledge and an agnostic that claims (believes?) no knowledge can be gained about Santa Claus. Are they both agnostic or does the article provide a more descriptive term for the two varieties? Isn't this the heart of the debate over the definition? Alatari (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

All definitions of agnosticism say it is a view or position. As such it has to be explicit/conscious - one has to have some notion of what being (or concept) is being proposed in order to claim the truth value of statements about its existence is/are unknown or unknowable. No source I have ever seen calls infants agnostics - infants do not make intellectual claims about anything. Btw, hardly anyone would agree infants are atheists either. The absence definition of atheism has serious problems - it leads not only to unusual categorizations but even to absurdities.--JimWae (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you made a change to reference dates on the Religion in Canada article citing WP:DATERET & MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT as reasons. None of those guidelines/MoSes relate to references but body copy. And certainly, WP:STRONGNAT does not apply to restoring the ISO 8601 date format to a Canadian article, let alone the others you're applying it to. It simply states "YYYY-MM-DD format may be used in references, even in articles with national ties, if otherwise acceptable", and it's not particularly acceptable when a full date is an option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

the top of the edit page gives the edit for which dateret applies--JimWae (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And since I applied it you're treading on dangerous ground. You need to discuss at the article now or it will be reverted. See WP:BRD Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Look at the 2nd line: < !-- keep yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates (and archivedates) per 2009-MAR-21 edit--> You have not made a case for your change to MDY --JimWae (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello JimWae, would you mind answering "Two Questions" on the Talk:Koreatown, Manhattan page? I'm just curious what editors think. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Jesus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 25, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 25, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Jesus (7–2 BC to 30–33 AD) is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament. Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return. The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Divine Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural. In Islam, Jesus is considered one of God's important prophets and the Messiah. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)