Talk:Antony Flew and User talk:124.191.92.25: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
m Robot - Replacing image Wikisigbutton.png with Button sig2.png |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== November 2007 == |
|||
{{WPBiography |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}[[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome]] to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Ed O'Loughlin|. A contribution you made to [[:Ed O'Loughlin]] appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem}}. Please remember to observe our [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|core policies]]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npov1 --> [[User:Thinboy00|Thinboy00]] <sup>[[User_talk:Thinboy00|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Thinboy00|contribs]]</sub> [[Swatch Internet Time|@10]], i.e. 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
|living=yes |
|||
:''If this is a shared [[IP address]], and you didn't make the edit, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' |
|||
|class=B |
|||
|priority= |
|||
|politician-work-group=yes |
|||
|a&e-work-group=yes|listas=Flew, Antony}} |
|||
{{philosophy|importance=low|class=|philosopher=yes}} |
|||
{{wpa|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|||
==December 2007== |
|||
{{archivebox| |
|||
===BLP difficulties at Ed O'Loughlin=== |
|||
*[[/Archive 1|Dec 2004 — Aug 2006]] |
|||
Please read my reply to your posting on my talk page, [[User talk:Fluri#BLP difficulties at Ed O'Loughlin|here]]. I would appreciate your answering my questions on the article's [[Talk:Ed O'Loughlin|talk page]] where such a content discussion is most appropriate. — [[User:Fluri|'''Dave''']] <small>([[User_Talk:Fluri|'''Talk''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Fluri|'''contribs''']])</small> 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
'''Welcome!''' |
|||
==Balance== |
|||
Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]]{{#if:{{{art|}}}|, especially what you did for [[{{{art}}}]]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: |
|||
It seems clear to me that some have allowed the deist/atheist issue overwhelm the rest of this article. Flew was a respected British philosopher and yet that is rushed through to get down to the (G)Habermas-Flew thing.[[Special:Contributions/86.141.231.90|86.141.231.90]] ([[User talk:86.141.231.90|talk]]) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Tutorial|Tutorial]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] |
|||
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign]] your messages on [[Wikipedia:talk page|discussion page]]s using four [[tilde]]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], ask me on {{#if:Fluri|[[user talk:Fluri|my talk page]]|my talk page}}, or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[:Category:Wikipedians looking for help|helpme]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> — [[User:Fluri|'''Dave''']] <small>([[User_Talk:Fluri|'''Talk''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Fluri|'''contribs''']])</small> 13:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Re O'Loughlin, please read [[WP:BLP#Criticism]], and in future, use the article talk page rather than my user talk page. <[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]> 09:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
FACT: Flew is now a deist. |
|||
Atheists need to get over this, otherwise it clouds their neutrality in approaching this article. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/131.111.8.97|131.111.8.97]] ([[User talk:131.111.8.97|talk]]) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== [[Ed O'Loughlin]] == |
|||
The article which is provided as a source for Flew's convertion from atheism has a title "My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism". Deism and Theism are different concepts. Deism says "there's a creator who does not interfere with the world", Theism "there's a creator". Flew's religious stance should be changed to theism (according to the article's title).[[Special:Contributions/86.50.9.167|86.50.9.167]] ([[User talk:86.50.9.167|talk]]) 17:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Please do not add unreferenced or [[WP:RS|poorly referenced]] information, especially if controversial, to Wikipedia articles about [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living persons]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-biog2 --><br/> |
|||
==Untitled== |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Ed O'Loughlin|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Ed O'Loughlin]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:Note also that 3RR '''does not apply''' to derogatory information which relies on unreliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Editors who re-insert such material may be warned and '''blocked'''.|Note also that 3RR '''does not apply''' to derogatory information which relies on unreliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Editors who re-insert such material may be warned and '''blocked'''.|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]> 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I have met Antony Flew many times over the years and read most of his published writings. So I was rather surprised to learn, from the wikipedia article, that he was a supporter of apartheid and protectionism. These charges are false, and I have thought hard about what they could be based on. |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] }}}Please [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|do not attack]] other editors{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|, which you did here: [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. If you continue, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> <[[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]]/[[User talk:Eleland|<b>talk</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Eleland|edits]]> 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It is true that Antony Flew was never a supporter of the A.N.C. (which has been in power for 13 years in South Africa) and was (in the 1980's and before) very critical indeed of its communist wing. However, this is hardly the same thing as being a supporter of apartheid. As for protectionism, how an old free trader like Antony Flew could be accused of protectionism is beyond me. |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|left|30px]] }}}This is the '''last warning''' you will receive for your disruptive comments. <br> If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at [[:{{{1}}}]]}}, you '''will''' be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa4 --> |
|||
Paul Marks. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.66.149.30|84.66.149.30]] ([[User talk:84.66.149.30|talk]]) 19:22, August 26, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Specifics: Offensive characterisation towards [[User:Eleland|<b>el</b>eland]] on [[Talk:Ed_O%27Loughlin|Talk:Ed O'Loughlin]] --[[User:Manning Bartlett|Manning]] ([[User talk:Manning Bartlett|talk]]) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hey is someone going to add the fact that Flew has just published this new book? |
|||
http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9879593-7946333?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192020772&sr=8-1 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.134.103.184|75.134.103.184]] ([[User talk:75.134.103.184|talk]]) 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Your recent edits== |
|||
==Personal attacks are against WP policy== |
|||
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] by typing four [[tilde]]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the [[Shift key]], and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button [[Image:Button sig2.png]] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!<!-- Template:Tilde --> --[[User:SineBot|SineBot]] 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Personal attacks are against WP policy. They will be removed from this page, and may have further consequences for those posting them. This page has been edited to archive the old discussion from January. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 06:00, April 26, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] }}}Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia{{{{{subst|}}}#if:User:Manning Bartlett|, as you did to [[:User:Manning Bartlett]]}}. Your edits appear to constitute [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> [[User:KnowledgeOfSelf|<font color="#151B8D">Knowledge</font><font color="#6D7B8D">Of</font><font color="#461B7E">Self</font>]] | [[User talk:KnowledgeOfSelf|<font color="#461B7E">talk</font>]] 05:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==This article is libelous == |
|||
"Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." |
|||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been {{{{{subst|}}}#ifeq:{{{indef|}}}|yes|[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] indefinitely|{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{time|}}}|'''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' for a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|temporarily [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]}}}} from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for persistent [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. {{{{{subst|}}}#ifeq:{{{indef|}}}|yes||Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make constructive contributions]].}} If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:true|[[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)}}</div>{{{{{subst|}}}#ifeq:{{{indef|}}}|yes|[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages]]}}</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> |
|||
<b>An article of an encyclopedia must contain information and the writer is meant to be objective and not to make a judgement about the subject of the article. This awful article is a libel. The writer try to discredit the thinking of Antony Flew instead of giving information. It is OK to give an opinion but an encyclopedia is not the place to do this.</b> |
|||
:''If this is a shared [[IP address]], and you didn't make the edit, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' |
|||
{{unblock reviewed|1===For Dr. Tim Vickers== |
|||
See some sentences: |
|||
"the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs" (well, this is an opinion not a fact. The writter makes a judgement about the new introduction) |
|||
Undoubtedly Wikipedia is an important world resource on many topics. Certainly Wikipedia needs to maintain a high quality of references underpinning its articles. That is exactly why the references I have provided in the article must be accepted. They are based on considered conclusions from a wide range of quality sources. They are an accurate reflection of the work of Ed O'Loughlin made by people that know this area. There is no contrary evidence which any editor has brought to light. |
|||
"left the world hanging when it closed with..." (well, I suppose this is an opinion. The writer thinks the world has been left hanging" but not an objective fact. I haven't seen the world hanging so far.). |
|||
"Flew admitted to Carrier that he had not read any of the scientific critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to" (please, what is this? A soap opera? Would you imagine this sentence in a serious encyclopedia?) |
|||
Would you accept this in a encyclopedia like Encyclopaedia Britannica? I would like for the reviewers of this encyclopedia to mark this article as controversial and to rewrite this impartially (nor supporting neither discrediting antony flew, but giving information) finsalscollons |
|||
[[User:83.53.126.58|83.53.126.58]] 09:42, April 8, 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Therefore, blocking me (on trumped-up Wikipedia "charges") does not bother me in the least. However, it is a sad reflection on your own processes. Why? |
|||
;See also<nowiki>:</nowiki> |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|BLP noticeboard]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Antony_Flew__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_WP:BLP_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D Antony Flew section.] [[User:Athaenara|<span style="font-family: Edwardian Script ITC; font-size: 14pt"> — Athænara </font></span>]] [[User talk:Athaenara| <small>✉</small> ]] 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(1) Administrative editors specifically deleted my (concise) position statement in the RfC section and supplanted it with their own statement in an attempt to influence the RfC. These Administrators of Wikipedia were simultaneously advocating a particular viewpoint on O'Loughlin's work, and judging the validly of a contributing editor's references and attempting to silence him. |
|||
== Recent New York Times article == |
|||
(2) The repeated deleting by Wikipedia editors of the words "media monitoring groups" and substituting it with the words "Jewish groups" (when they are by no means exclusively Jewish) will be of general wider interest, I think, and may have certain other implications. |
|||
''[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin The Turning of an Atheist]'' throws considerable doubt over whether the opinions contained in ''There Is a God'' can be legitimately considered to be Flew's own, as its co-author, Varghese, admits to having "done all the original writing for it", and as Flew apparently can no longer remember much of its contents. Also it seems that Flew's opinions have become increasingly malliable and incoherent in his old age: |
|||
{{cquote|But it seems somewhat more likely that Flew, having been intellectually chaperoned by Roy Varghese for 20 years, simply trusted him to write something responsible. Varghese had done him so many kindnesses. He introduced Flew to Gerald Schroeder and John Haldane, and, I learned, he flew to England to chauffeur Flew to meetings with Leftow and the Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne (although when Leftow and Swinburne appear in the book, the conversations are described as if Varghese were not present). Varghese also gave Flew adventures, jetting him to Dallas and New York, putting him in a DVD documentary, getting his name in the papers. If at times Flew could be persuaded, by a letter or a phone call from an American atheist, that Varghese and his crew were not the eminent authorities on science they made themselves out to be, he was always happy to change his mind back. These Christians were kind and attentive, and they always seemed to have the latest research.}} |
|||
<font face="Antiqua, serif">[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub></font> 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(3) The comment by Manning that on advice he would overturn the blockade on me seems itself to have been overturned without explanation and an attempt was made to cover this up. With all the Wikipedia rules and procedures this arbitrary behaviour is rather unsatisfactory. |
|||
(4) As a scientist, Dr. Vickers you would realise that in consciously acting as an instrument to suppress knowledge you are acting in a way that must compromise your reputation and makes you vulnerable. |
|||
Yes, absolutely! This article is in worse condition than I could have imagined. That NYT article is a good source to look first at when trying to record Mr. Flew's narrative--that is, without it sounding too much like a commercial for religion. In any case, someone has to save this article. I just heard about Mr. Flew's "conversion", simultaneously with his new-found dementia-like symptoms; and, as the NYT story manifestly shows, of the controversy afoot about Flew as an "author" now supporting Deism, namely that he can't seem to recall the arguments or evidences from the book he allegedly co-authored, and that Varghess, therefore, is using Flew as a mouthpiece for his view that there is an underlying logic to Christian fundamentalism that makes it a serious choice for even the most critical mind. This information should be in the article; let's never forget [[Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial|NPOV]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources|reliability]]. Unfortunately I have no time to revise this myself, but I hope somebody takes on the mantle. [[Special:Contributions/24.161.156.125|24.161.156.125]] ([[User talk:24.161.156.125|talk]]) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Oh and 124.191.92.25 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC).|decline=The [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy and the prohibition against [[WP:OR|original research or synthesis]] are not negotiable. You have been warned that the contents you were introducing was inappropriate, yet you did not desist. Please use the time remaining in your block to familiarize yourself with those policies. You are welcome to return once your block ends, but further disruption will not be accepted. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Disputed paragraph == |
|||
== Refactoring other editors' comments on talk pages == |
|||
The following paragraph originally introduced the list of 10 items which appears in the '''Reaction and response''' section: |
|||
<blockquote>In 2005, when God and Philosophy was republished by Prometheus Books, the new introduction failed to conclusively answer the question of Flew's beliefs. The preface says the publisher and Flew went through a total of four versions (each extensively peer-reviewed) before coming up with one that satisfied them both. The result is an introduction, written in a distinctly detached third-person context, which raises ten matters that came about since the original 1966 edition. Flew refrains from personally commenting on these issues, and basically says that any book to follow God and Philosophy will have to take into account these ideas when considering the philosophical case for the existence of God.</blockquote> |
|||
It was deleted by a one-edit IP in March 2008, with no edit summary, leaving the list having no apparent connection with the surrounding text. When I noticed this yesterday it seemed like a simple case of vandalism so I re-added the paragraph, which was then promptly deleted by [[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]] with the edit summary "Unsourced" (rather ironic, given the first two sentences). Hrafn has subsequently insisted the paragraph is [[WP:SYNTH]]. Pro tem, I have re-added the paragraph removing the obvious editorializing, since something is needed to introduce the list of ten matters (or the list should be deleted as well). But I havn't read the book, and I see above on this talk page that another IP editor claims the first sentence of the paragraph is libelous. I've now replaced the loaded word "failed to" with "does not", but is this correct? If any editors have read the text in question, please amend the paragraph, viz: if Flew states that he is not |
|||
defending his new position, make it clear that there is no attempt to do so. OTOH, if it ''is'' a defense then clearly we should not editorialize to say that the defense fails, so better just to report that the introduction does defend his new views. In the same vein, does Flew explicitly say that he is "refraining from personally commenting" on the 10 issues? If not, don't say so. [[User:PaddyLeahy|PaddyLeahy]] ([[User talk:PaddyLeahy|talk]]) 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Dear editor, please do '''not remove or re-word''' comments left by other editors, as you have done on [[Talk:Ed O'Loughlin]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEd_O%27Loughlin&diff=177177921&oldid=176324869] by refactoring comments left by [[Special:Contributions/90.204.101.66|90.204.101.66]]. This is not acceptable [[WP:TALK#Others.27_comments|talk page behavior]], and you have been [[Talk:Ed_O%27Loughlin#User:124.191.92.25_-_issues_relating_to_RfC_conduct|warned]] twice about this on the talk page. If you wish to comment, do so '''in your own words''', and make a new section for your comments. Thank you, <small>[[user:ArielGold|<font color="8B00FF">'''Ariel'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/ArielGold|<font color="F64A8A">♥</font>]][[User_talk:ArielGold|<font color="007FFF">'''Gold'''</font>]]</small> 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Discussing what the primary source (allegedly) doesn't say/doesn't "conclusively" say is still [[WP:SYNTH]], so I've tagged those parts as well. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''</font> 19:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Flew, Dawkins, Einstein & God == |
|||
Far from demonstrating "Flew's critical faculties", the cited piece appears to demonstrate his wishful thinking. Flew states: |
|||
{{quotation|But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it.}} |
|||
However, in a recently auctioned letter of Einstein (that received considerable publicity), Einstein on January 3 1954 stated to the philosopher Eric Gutkind:[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion] |
|||
{{quotation|The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.}} |
|||
Einstein did, at times, use the word "God" in statements, but in ways that could easily be interpreted as a mere [[pantheism|pantheistic]] metaphor for 'the order of the Universe'. I think that Flew's criticism of Dawkins is unfounded, and the claim that it demonstrates "critical faculties" both ill-founded and blatant [[WP:SYNTH]] of the [[WP:PSTS|primary source]]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''</font> 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I think it's better to use Flew's description of Einstein's god rather than to attribute to Flew a definition by Einstein that Flew might not have been familiar with. Anyway, in my reading I have encountered various theistic statements about god or a god by Einstein (in books). They seem to contradict each other. --[[User:Rrand|Rrand]] ([[User talk:Rrand|talk]]) 10:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Diagnoses of senility by nonprofessionals == |
|||
"Journalist Mark Oppenheimer suggested that Flew, then 84 years of age at the time of Oppenheimer's statement, has been suffering from a mild form of senile dementia for at least three or four years." |
|||
Is it really necessary to allow a journalist to infer that Antony might have senile dimentia? Is there some sort of medical evaluation by a trained physician you can cite as a reference? Lots of people are forgetful. I'm forgetful and I'm 34. I notice on John McCain's page there is no reference to dimentia or senility even though it's been inferred by the media many times. |
|||
--[[User:Rrand|Rrand]] ([[User talk:Rrand|talk]]) 10:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It's one thing to be "forgetful", it's another to forget major points of your own latest book. If he cannot remember its contents, and it was to a considerable extent 'co-written' (to the point that it appears to have been basically 'ghost-written'), what value does his claim of authorship and avowal of its (unremembered) contents have? This is not some journalist inferring from gaffs in press conferences, speeches, etc -- this is a journalist who spent considerable times interviewing Flew. Short of a doctor's report -- which we are unlikely to ever see, this is the most reliable source we are likely to get on Flew's mental health. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''</font> 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
You just killed your own strawman. If it was ghost-written, couldn't that explain his bad memory on the issues? Why must one believe a journalist then that he has senile dimentia? Flew himself has denied it. At best this should be a footnote. --[[User:Rrand|Rrand]] ([[User talk:Rrand|talk]]) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Flew also claims that he stands by everything he 'wrote' -- making his ability to remember what he 'wrote' a clear issue. The article doesn't say that we 'must believe' Oppenheimer -- but his report is the best we have available (and the best we are likely to get) as to his mental facilities. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub>''</font> 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If he didn't write it, as you suggested, then there is nothing for him to 'stand by'. As to your second point, Flew himself has stated in the same interview that he has "nominal aphasia", the inability to remember words and names. Perhaps you should make reference to this. I would like to reiterate that Oppenheimer is not a physician and his opinion is not credible, even if it's the only opinion you have. What exactly is your reason for inquiring into Flew's mental state anyway? When you yourself has suggested he did not write the book, don't tell me it's because he can't remember what he wrote. Also I would like you to address why there is no reference to McCain's senility when it has been suggested by more than one journalists. --[[User:Rrand|Rrand]] ([[User talk:Rrand|talk]]) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:53, 10 August 2008
November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Ed O'Loughlin appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Thinboy00 talk/contribs @10, i.e. 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
December 2007
BLP difficulties at Ed O'Loughlin
Please read my reply to your posting on my talk page, here. I would appreciate your answering my questions on the article's talk page where such a content discussion is most appropriate. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, 124.191.92.25, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re O'Loughlin, please read WP:BLP#Criticism, and in future, use the article talk page rather than my user talk page. <eleland/talkedits> 09:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to Wikipedia articles about living persons. Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ed O'Loughlin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Note also that 3RR does not apply to derogatory information which relies on unreliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Editors who re-insert such material may be warned and blocked. <eleland/talkedits> 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. <eleland/talkedits> 10:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Specifics: Offensive characterisation towards eleland on Talk:Ed O'Loughlin --Manning (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Manning Bartlett. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
124.191.92.25 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
For Dr. Tim Vickers
Undoubtedly Wikipedia is an important world resource on many topics. Certainly Wikipedia needs to maintain a high quality of references underpinning its articles. That is exactly why the references I have provided in the article must be accepted. They are based on considered conclusions from a wide range of quality sources. They are an accurate reflection of the work of Ed O'Loughlin made by people that know this area. There is no contrary evidence which any editor has brought to light.
Therefore, blocking me (on trumped-up Wikipedia "charges") does not bother me in the least. However, it is a sad reflection on your own processes. Why?
(1) Administrative editors specifically deleted my (concise) position statement in the RfC section and supplanted it with their own statement in an attempt to influence the RfC. These Administrators of Wikipedia were simultaneously advocating a particular viewpoint on O'Loughlin's work, and judging the validly of a contributing editor's references and attempting to silence him.
(2) The repeated deleting by Wikipedia editors of the words "media monitoring groups" and substituting it with the words "Jewish groups" (when they are by no means exclusively Jewish) will be of general wider interest, I think, and may have certain other implications.
(3) The comment by Manning that on advice he would overturn the blockade on me seems itself to have been overturned without explanation and an attempt was made to cover this up. With all the Wikipedia rules and procedures this arbitrary behaviour is rather unsatisfactory.
(4) As a scientist, Dr. Vickers you would realise that in consciously acting as an instrument to suppress knowledge you are acting in a way that must compromise your reputation and makes you vulnerable.
Oh and 124.191.92.25 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
Decline reason:
The verifiability policy and the prohibition against original research or synthesis are not negotiable. You have been warned that the contents you were introducing was inappropriate, yet you did not desist. Please use the time remaining in your block to familiarize yourself with those policies. You are welcome to return once your block ends, but further disruption will not be accepted. — Coren (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Refactoring other editors' comments on talk pages
Dear editor, please do not remove or re-word comments left by other editors, as you have done on Talk:Ed O'Loughlin, [1] by refactoring comments left by 90.204.101.66. This is not acceptable talk page behavior, and you have been warned twice about this on the talk page. If you wish to comment, do so in your own words, and make a new section for your comments. Thank you, Ariel♥Gold 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)