Wikipedia

User talk:JzG/Archive 204

< User talk:JzG
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Starship.paint in topic Concern
Archive 200←Archive 202Archive 203Archive 204Archive 205Archive 206→Archive 210

Why disturbing my article

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Hello sir please explain to me why u are removing some info on the article i created 2 i am working on the article everyday you could have just drop what was wrong with it in my talk section rather than removing it Mickyskidy (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mickyskidy, it's not "your" article. I already explained the problem on your talk page. The article is spam, and your insistent promotional editing makes it worse not better. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

There isn't any spam promotion the only section i might have made a mistake should be the reference section and i am already working on it now before you deleted it again Mickyskidy (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't payed for the article so why should it be spamming it i just felt like the article worth being published on Wikipedia and i did it though alot of error could be there this is my first article and i am making changes everyday to make it better Mickyskidy (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mickyskidy, you have fewer than 100 edits to Wikipedia, I don't think you understand our policies on sourcing, especially around the nature of press releases as sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

All references comes from Google news approved site and i think Wikipedia also takes that as a reliable source Mickyskidy (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mickyskidy, Wikipedia isn't Google News, and Google News includes press releases, which are not intellectually independent of the source. Republishing a press release doesn't magiucally make it something other than PR. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay right now i don't know what to do again maybe i should just go and rest my head and come back later for editing because right now my head is boiling Mickyskidy (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And also please remove the deletion of the article i think the company worth publishing article for one Wikipedia so why deleting it why not just remove unwanted stuff Mickyskidy (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello sir after your have reverted my article and removed the links i haven't added any more link on Wikipedia so why adding vimeodownload.com to blacklist and that is isn't the only domain i added during the process Mickyskidy (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Mickyskidy, that's not a site Wikipedia should be linking to, ever. It hosts (steals, more accurately) content from other sites. Look at your edit here - that "legit information" information you mentioned was copied EXACTLY from The Ringer.com. That's called a copyright violation. Wikipedia DOES NOT link to sites that do that. Yes, vimeodownload.com should be blacklisted. Ravensfire (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit, "I haven't spammed the copyright-violating site for an entire 24 hours, so why are you blacklisting it?" is a new one. Related: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#vimeodownload.com. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Puppeteer report

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Main page: User talk:Drmies § Puppetteer report

I have reported a puppeteer that I found, to my surprise, to Drmies. You might enjoy it. Uncle G (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And now the adults are in charge again...

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

To the surprise of nobody who cared, it turns out that the "Russia hoax" wasn't a hoax at all.

  • Paul Manafort was giving internal GOP polling data to the FSB
  • Constantin Kilimnik was a conduit for this, and was also a primary contact for Rick Gates
  • Kilimnik was also involved in feeding the Trump administration with disinformation around Ukraine
  • SouthFront and NewsFront were two Russian-operated disinformation sites in Ukraine (I initiated blacklisting of both in 2019 [1]) - other Russian fake news sites were also involved in pushing Russian narratives, especially around Ukraine
  • Russia was leaning on the scales again in 2020, conducting influence operations and information warfare
  • Vladimir Putin's primary goal in everything he does is to consolidate his own oligarchy, and to weaken his geopolitical foes - even if he does you a favour, he is not your friend, and it seems to me that the political right in the US has failed to internalise the aphorism "He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon"

There's more, and more on the way, but it's abundantly clear by now that any veneer of support for the Trump narrative that Russia was "a hoax" was created entirely by the actions of his political appointees, and in spite of the evidence the intelligence community had gathered. And yet people still argue, in apparently good faith, that the right-wing media bubble, which promtes this false narrative (and the Big Lie), and the mainstream media, are two sides of the same coin, and that balance comes from halving the difference. WP:RANDY in the real world. The opposite of mainstream is not conservative. The opposite of mainstream is fringe. Conservative media, for all its popularity, is now fringe.

Search on Fox News for mentions of Kilimnik in the last six months. Crickets. Mentions of Manafort this week? None. Roger Stone? The last mention was Stone's appearance at CPAC (not, as far as I can tell, on the Odal rune stage), promoting Trump's "achievements" (or "death toll" as most media put it).

Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

AFC Submission, Joel Greenberg

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Howdy JzG - I accepted your submission at AFC. I was somewhat concerned about WP:BLP1E, but my own Google search on Greenberg turned up enough unused sources, some going back several years, that I'm reasonably confident he warrants his own article. I did make a minor change to the phrasing to clarify Gaetz hasn't been charged with anything, but other then that it was well-done as always. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth, thanks much, appreciated. I shared your concern, hence the draft and the question, but this looks sufficiently picturesque that lasting coverage should be assured. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

East StratCom Task Force

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm glad that you're around lately and thanks for the above links. Just in case it also interests you, since it's related, this article may need revision/update, including IRT the important role it played recently. A few months back it attracted some criticism (probably unsurprising). Some of it is also not really criticism, maybe a reception section would be more appropriate per MOS... —PaleoNeonate – 00:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, good thought. This was indeed the first place to properly and authoritatively document the nest of Russian fake news sites. I was shocked - shocked! - to find that right-wing populist xenophobes who benefited from Russian disinformation, have criticised EUvDisnifo. Once you take out primary-sourced opinion, there's a legitimate criticism of an apparently sloppy error that was corrected too slowly, wrapped around with the inevitable inflated political rhetoric that could probably be toned down some. What's most noticeable (on Googling) is that the loudest opposition seems to echo (and I know you'll have a hard time believing this) Russian talking points, for example that the Russian invasion of Donbass is really a lot of freedom fighters and not at all an invasion funded and supplied by Russia, oh dear me no. How very dare the EU believe Ukrainian sources about this, and not Russian ones? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Greensill scandal

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, right after our exchange at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, you manually reverted an edit of mine at Greensill scandal [2][3]. I really want to believe that it's a complete coincidence. However, if that's not the case, I suggest that we try not to escalate our disagreement and keep it on the relevant talk page. JBchrch (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch, I'm English. Enough said? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is, actually. JBchrch (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:BL~enwiki/New VFD

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, Guy,

I have a curious question for you. I was looking at old userspace drafts and came across this one. It's not a draft, it looks like a cut-and-paste deletion discussion from 17 years ago. I thought it might be interesting from a historical point-of-view but I can't find where these old deletion discussions are. I looked in Category:Wikipedia deletion but nothing. So, do you know where I could find old deletion discussions so I could see if this was just a duplicate and do you think this is worth marking historical? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Years ago, prior to September 2005, we had Wikipedia:Votes for deletion instead of AfD. Due to broken links it may be hard to find anything from that period. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Ed, there are only about 800 AFD discussions in Category:AfD debates when there must be tens of thousands of old deletion discussions. Are all of these pages just uncategorized? Well, that makes it impossible to find anything. I never understood why SPI cases are also uncategorized, too. So, it is basically impossible to locate old deletion discussions unless you know the title to search for. I can't believe this was an intentional decision to not categorize internal Wikipedia pages...or maybe it just got to be a problem that didn't have a fixable solution. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Liz, it's a great question, and I have no idea! As others have said, we moved from VFD to AfD but the people who curate AfD may well have changed the mechanism for categorising old debates. I did think they were in monthly categories, but I confess I normally use Search or What Links Here, because I am normally coming at it from the perspective of a single article. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We do not categorize closed AFD discussions. The categories are for people to find and to monitor (with related changes) open ones. Yes, that's what VFD used to look like. Compare Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004. We tried various places for the discussions. Some people wanted them on article talk pages, and VFD to merely point to the talk pages like RFC did. At one point they were in templates. They got archived to history, and archived to archive pages. Once we settled on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion I remember one person with a 'bot going and renaming as many old discussions that were on individual pages (VFD, template, and other) as could be found to sub-pages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you are going back that far in history, remember that the actual MediaWiki deletion mechanism worked differently too. Undeletion, and even a deletion log, were not there in the very early years. Even deletion itself wasn't there in the early years, absent a developer actually going in to the database and deleting records. There's a very sorry tale about how the dirty "-ista"s came about that has its roots in how the deletion mechanism worked in the early years. (At one point, for example, there was a table, that the developers needed to clear in the SQL database every so often; and deleted stuff would just be lost forever at arbitrary points.) There was someone who had a lot of dozy ideas, some of whose pages people were still stumbling across just this past decade. The dirty "-ista"s were a dozy idea that people, foolishly, believed. They were just more dopey stuff from the same source as Wikipedia:Concept limit. Uncle G (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

18 years of dren

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

How far have you ever reverted an article? Because I think that 17 years and 10 months must be a contender for some kind of record. Uncle G (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Guy, I'm concerned about your conduct in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Innican Soufou. When you started the discussion, you did not go into detail and you did not provide individual diffs [4]. Later in the discussion, you digressed to BLM and Antifa [5], Derek Chauvin, George Floyd, [6] and Republicans stopping an federal anti-lynching law [7]. You've hindered your own report with this manner of posts. I'm sure you can do better than this. starship.paint (exalt) 11:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Republican Jesus

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

  Hello, JzG. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Republican Jesus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

From the source you cite:[8]
"Contemporary American conservatism has become something of an ideological hydra. In order to continue to appeal to the mass of people over the years, Republicans have fused traditional conservatism—still embodied in staunch resistance to socialism, fervent nationalism, faith in law and order, and exaltation of civilized culture and tradition—with strands of libertarianism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and evangelical Christianity."
--Guy Macon (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that if User talk:Drmies is Articles for Creation, this user talk page must be Requests for Theology. You will of course be familiar from lurking over at AFC. I expect you to expand this with more rounded coverage from others, of course. Uncle G (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Keddie's conception

Keddie, an assistant Professor of Early Christian History and Literature at the University of British Columbia (UBC), relates that he was inspired to sit down and set out what he termed Republican Jesus in response to remarks made by Paula White-Kane and by a question asked of him by one of his students at UBC.[1] White-Kane had made remarks about how Jesus' was a legal immigrant to Egypt and not a refugee, travelling with his family "as if it had been just a nice family vacation to Disney World instead of a life-or-death struggle to escape King Herod's violent 'massacre of the innocents'", which Keddie observes is directly contradicted by the text of the Gospel of Matthew itself.[1] In class, a student had asked "why the Americans who seemed to love Jesus the most are the ones who use who use him in the most hateful ways".[1]

Responding immediately that far from all Americans did this, and that United States politicians were far from the only people in the world to have cherry-picked the parts of the New Testament that suited their purposes, Keddie then wrote his book to explain how in his view ideologically motivated Republicans had taken the Jesus of the New Testament and transformed him into a figure that ahistorically supported free-market capitalism, gun rights, opposition to abortion, and the separation of church and state.[2] He set out to challenge what he saw as the hermeneutics of hate, applying historical expertise to "invalidate biblical interpretations that encourage marginalization and oppression" and oppose those who "fix the meaning of a biblical text as a basis for discrimination".[3] Whilst many biblical texts do in fact, in scholarly analysis, endorse rape, conquest, slavery, genocide, and so forth, Keddie distinguished this from interpretations that are "not a plain-sense reading or historical fact" that are used to give authority to modern forms of oppressive ideology "imposed onto biblical texts where they have no clear historical basis".[4]

Republican Jesus is thus Keddie's view of how, specifically, Republicans are interpreting Jesus's politics and ethics.[5] Keddie describes a "GOP method" whereby Republican televangelists and politicians construct this interpretation:[6]

  • They garble the text, through mistranslation of the original texts or mis-use of English translations.[6]
  • They omit parts of verses or adjoining verses, to strip biblical text of its contect.[6]
  • They patch together the results.[6]

The result is a patchwork that promotes Republican political positions.[6] Keddie notes that this is far from unusual in history; and that even the writers of the Gospels did this themselves to the Hebrew scriptures.[7]

In relation to the United States Evangelical movement

Whilst one of the things that Evangelicism is primarily associated with is a literalist approach to the Bible, Randall Balmer observes a "ruse of selective literalism" where Evangelicals "wrench passages out of context and offer pinched, literalistic interpretations […] that diminish the scriptures by robbing them of their larger meaning".[8][9] He expounds the argument that from the second half of the 20th century onwards the Evangelical movement has progressively eroded its values, resulting in it being in the position of being as at odds with its original views and scripture in the 21st century that it is in.[9]

Painting Evangelicals of the 18th and 19th century such as Charles G. Finney and James H. Fairchild as progressive and "radical by the standards of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries", embracing such topics as voting rights, universal public education, equal rights and pay for women, helping the poor, suspicion of capitalism, and prison reform;[10] Balmer observes a marked contrast with late 20th century and 21st century evangelicals.[11] Evangelicals had turned from opposition to war to supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; from equal rights to opposing the Equal Rights Amendment; and from suspicion of usury to "pro-business" positions.[11]

Balmer points to the 1970s as a turning point, with the defense of tax exemption for segregated schools such as Bob Jones University being the pivotal issue that led to Evangelicals aligning themselves with Ronald Reagan and hence having to at least abandon their opposition to divorce (Reagan having been divorced and remarried) and further endorse as the years went by the positions of George W. Bush and Donald Trump.[12] Balmer observes that Evangelicism and the Religious Right in the Republican party no longer connects with Biblical scripture, wherein Evangalicals would find "sobering words about care for the needy, clothing the poor, visiting the prisoners, and welcoming the foreigner as one of their own".[13] In support of this thesis, he points to Jimmy Carter's observation, that his fellow Southern Baptists could either follow, in wider view, the generalized teachings and acts of Jesus as recounted in the New Testament with respect to women and the declaration of St Paul, or cherry-pick verses from the Bible to justify their (then) position on women in the ministry.[13]

References

  1. ^ a b c Keddie 2020, pp. 3–4.
  2. ^ Keddie 2020, pp. 4–5.
  3. ^ Keddie 2020, pp. 8.
  4. ^ Keddie 2020, p. 9.
  5. ^ Keddie 2020, p. 2.
  6. ^ a b c d e Keddie 2020, pp. 9–10.
  7. ^ Keddie 2020, p. 10.
  8. ^ Davison Hunter 2010, p. 140.
  9. ^ a b Balmer 2020, pp. 78 et seq..
  10. ^ Balmer 2020, pp. 80–82.
  11. ^ a b Balmer 2020, pp. 82.
  12. ^ Balmer 2020, pp. 82, 85.
  13. ^ a b Balmer 2020, pp. 87.

Reference bibliography

  • Keddie, G. Anthony (2020). REPUBLICAN JESUS : how the right has rewritten the gospels. Oakland, California: University of Califonia Press. ISBN 0-520-35623-3. OCLC 1143359822.
  • Balmer, Randall Herbert (2020). "Donald Trump and the Death of Evangelicism". In Sider, Ronald J. (ed.). The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump: 30 Evangelical Christians on Justice, Truth, and Moral Integrity. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781725271784.
  • Davison Hunter, James (2010). "The Christian Left". To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199779529.

Further reading

  • Kobes Du Mez, Kristin (2020). Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. Liveright Publishing. ISBN 9781631495748.

Possible sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Is it okay to suspect sockpuppetry if two or more users have the same emoji in their signatures and they frequently edit the same topic areas? I can't conclude right away that they are part of a sock farm, but it appears that they give too many awards to each other too frequently. Talk pages like this demonstrate such activity. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) LSGH, both of those are fairly common behaviors among WP:WPTC editors (who, let's be honest, are probably all 12 years old). I doubt it's sockpuppetry. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability: It could be the case, but several of those accounts are named in a similar fashion were created in 2020. I'm not saying that all accounts that left messages on their talk pages are related to each other, but other kinds of similar behavior could show that they are indeed related. Only a few days ago, a similarly named account was messaged by some of the users in question. Maybe this SPI could also be related. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahistoric?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

From the above: "ideologically motivated Republicans had taken the Jesus of the New Testament and transformed him into a figure that ahistorically supported free-market capitalism, gun rights, opposition to abortion, and the separation of church and state."

Is this correct?

  • Free-market capitalism: I see nothing in History of capitalism that suggests that it existed in the 1st century, so obviously Jesus neither supported or opposed it.
  • Gun rights: No guns, but they had swords, and at least one one Jesus' disciples wore one. Was anyone in the 1st century trying to disarm people with swords? I don't think so.
  • Opposition to abortion: Abortion did exist, and some parts of the Bible are believed by some to refer to it. See Christianity and abortion#Biblical Passages and Judaism and abortion. Also see Historical attitudes to abortion. I see zero evidence that Jesus ever mentioned abortion, even though it existed at the time.
  • Separation of church and state: While there were certainly state religions (see Religion in ancient Rome) I see nothing in Separation of church and state that indicates that the concept existed in the 1st century.

So I conclude that Keddie was right and that said Repubicans are batshit insane. So are those who claim Jesus supported socialism. Jesus did prefer Linux, though,[9] and I am pretty sure Jesus preferred Chicago-Style Pizza to New York-Style Pizza.[Citation Needed] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As my intro to computer science professor said, "Jesus would have used an academic [software] license". GeneralNotability (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
No guns, but don't underestimate the power of the Holy Lance that even has bilocation powers, —PaleoNeonate – 13:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, I am scared of nothing. Except, of course, the Beast of Caerbannog. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Republican Jesus has been accepted

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Republican Jesus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BD2412 T 18:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_204&oldid=1109686573"