User talk:Bill the Cat 7

Battle of Gettysburg: Controversies

I'm considering putting together a list of all of the controversies about the Battle of Gettysburg. I've come up with the following outline. If you have the time and inclination, can you please let me know if I'm missing a controversy? I would also appreciate ANY input. Thanks.

I. Mission of Heth: Shoes, or Something Else?

II. Why Did Longstreet Fail to Launch an Early 7/2/1863 Attack?

III. Was Sickles Where He Was Supposed to Be & Did It Make Any Difference?

IV. Did Ewell Err In Not taking Cemetery/Culps Hills?

V. Was Picket’s Charge Supported As Lee Intended?

VI. Who Ordered the Charge of the 20th Maine Regiment: Melcher or Chamberlin?

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting for my reply. I do not think it is a good idea to have a separate article about controversies. At one time I had a section about controversies involving Pickett's Charge, but during a formal review people made me take it out and incorporate the controversial aspects into the main threads of the article. (There are a number of them in there and I suggest you take a look to see how they are handled.) Separating them out gives them the equivalent status of Trivia sections, which are also denigrated in Wikipedia articles.

If you decide that some of these are worth mentioning in the articles, I would suggest a few guidelines to govern your approach: (1) The Battle of Gettysburg article is actually an overview article and there are numerous sub articles that go into the details. Very few of these controversies would warrant space the overview article. (2) Some of the controversies, Sickles or Longstreet for example, which involve the decisions of individuals, would be more appropriate for expansion in the biography articles of those individuals (and are probably in there already). (3) We generally do not spend much effort considering the "what-if" questions of history because that is not encyclopedic. If notable people raising those questions caused substantive historical consequences, such as actions taken by the proponents of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, they are worthy of examination, but as mere exercises in curiosity or "attempting to set the record straight," they would not be. (4) All discussions about these topics need to be in the context of opinions expressed by secondary sources (professional historians writing in books, magazines, or journals), not original research in which the Wikipedia editor attempts to determine an appropriate judgment on the controversy. Hope that helps. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Battlefield results

Hi Hal:

Is there a consensus on how the results of each battle is described? It seems there a several ACW articles on wiki that don't seem to follow any rules. If not, then I propose the following:

I. Simple Results

a. Union victory

b. Union decisive victory

c. Confederate victory

d. Confederate decisive victory

II. Mixed Results

a. Tactical Union victory; Confederate strategic victory

b. Tactical Confederate victory; Union strategic victory

c. Tactically inconclusive; Union strategic victory

d. Tactically inconclusive; Confederate strategic victory

Anyway, what do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an argument that I have with people quite frequently. I almost always limit myself to Union victory, Confederate victory, and Inconclusive. The alternative forms are used very infrequently. One specific deviation from this is Antietam because of its unique stature with the ramifications of the Emancipation Proclamation. My thinking on the subject is encapsulated in User:Hlj/Why#Adjectives. I was recently beaten down by a very persistent user and there are now two articles that use the term decisive victory in the infobox, although I insisted on explanatory footnotes. (To be clear, my zeal in regulating this terminology applies only to that box, not the more free-form Aftermath sections at the end of articles, where there is ample room to explain what is meant and give alternative interpretations if required.) However, I will continue in my wily ways to try to prevent this from proliferating because I think it does a disservice to readers. Incidentally, given the most commonly accepted definition of decisive victory, there were no such victories on the Confederate side because they lost the war. If you happen to disagree with that premise, it demonstrates that there is no clear consensus on the meaning of decisive victory, which reinforces my argument that we should not use the term without ample explanation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Adjectives

Hello Hal:

I was reading the section on the use of adjectives in your article "Why". Although you make some good points, I think the rational conclusion would be to limit ALL battles of the ACW to either "Union Victory" or "Confederate Victory". After all, you said that...

It is best for all concerned that all of these adjectives be omitted and virtually none of the ACW articles use them. In almost all cases, historians do agree on which side achieved a victory of some sort, so limiting it to just "victory" meets everyone's basic requirements without injecting POV concerns.

But then you say:

There is one notable exception that I am aware of that I believe is justified. The Battle of Antietam was indecisive on a tactical level, but it is considered a strategic victory for the Union and the battle box indicates as such. (Bold added.)

Why is this justified??? Be specific, since I'm sure I can come up with at least one other battle that had the same level of significance (which would render the first quote meaningless, and thus open the door to using adjectives in other battle summaries).

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that this is a tactically inconclusive battle and I don't want the casual reader to think it had no strategic significance based on that simple phrase. (If it had been a tactical Union victory, there would be no need for further explanation.) I doubt that you will find any other inconclusive battles with similar significance; Antietam is considered by James M. McPherson as the turning point of the war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hal. You said, "I doubt that you will find any other inconclusive battles with similar significance...." The Battle of Chancellorville comes to mind. The same tactical results existed at both Chancellorsville and Antietam. The only difference is who withdrew first, yet the strategic implications are undeniable in each case.

At any rate, you said, "The reason is that this [Antietam] is a tactically inconclusive battle and I don't want the casual reader to think it had no strategic significance based on that simple phrase. The key adjective here is "inconclusive". Was Antietam inconclusive?

Two points:

1) The Battle of Antietam was NOT tactically inconclusive. Even in the BOA article itself it says, "Lee withdrew from the battlefield first, the technical definition of the tactical loser in a Civil War battle." Therefore, to say it was inconclusive in the summary box is bizarre.

2) Continuing from point #1 above: If the results in the summary box are anything other than Union Victory or Confederate Victory, then I don't see why other battles, such as the Battle of Atlanta, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, etc., can't have the strategic implications included (and the strategic implications of these battles are clearly huge).

Regarding McPherson: I can't respond to why he said what he said about Antietam, since I have no idea how he defines a "turning point", or even if there was more than one such turning point. According to the article, "Turning Point of the ACW", it defines it as:

The idea of a turning point is an event after which most observers would agree that the eventual outcome was inevitable.

What evidence does he provide? In any event, such evidence should appear in the body of the article and NOT in the battle result summary box.

All I'm arguing for is consistency in how battle results in the summary box are handled. You have (rightly) said in the past that the strategic implications of a particular battle should be handled in the body of the article, yet I don't see that applied uniformly, which suggests a definite POV. If Strategic Victory is acceptable for Antietam, then surely other battles deserve such a label. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill, no serious historian calls Chancellorsville inconclusive. It was a stunning victory for Lee (albeit one at high cost). After I wrote to you, it occurred to me that there is another example like Antietam, which is the Battle of Perryville, where the battle was tactically inconclusive (although it would not have been if it had gone for another day), but it represented the strategic end of Bragg's Kentucky campaign when he withdrew. We can remove the remark from Antietam about the technical victory, because that is actually just a game that Civil War military historians play. (I wrote that sentence and 99% of the article, so I am entitled to have such opinions.)

McPherson's thinking is actually summarized in the Wikipedia article. After Antietam the Emancipation Proclamation was announced, which essentially made it impossible for the European powers to come to the aid of the Confederacy, and which essentially tipped the balance away from them. (It also happened at the same time that the Confederates suffered significant reverses in Kentucky and Tennessee, ending the only coordinated set of strategic offensives they attempted during the war.)

I would not pay much attention to the turning point article. It was the first Wikipedia article I wrote and it is essentially uncited original research that I have never bothered cleaning up. If I could do it without controversy, I would propose the article for deletion because it would be very, very difficult to fix. The quotation that you took from the article is my personal opinion and I have found since then that many historians have completely different definitions. A very poor effort on my part, but that was 300+ articles ago. :-)

I have no great desire to go on a campaign of making the Infobox results entirely consistent because there are always subsequent editors who want to make changes and the inconsistencies creep back in. If I had to clean them all up, I would remove all references to strategic victories (because that really is an undefined term) and leave simply victory or inconclusive. For those articles in which confusion might result, I would use a footnote to explain in detail. After all, the National Park Service battle descriptions that we based all of these articles on originally are content with the very simple victory statements. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond directly on this page (without editing it), so please forgive me if this seems to be a conversation with myself, which may not be far from the truth.  :)

You said,

Bill, no serious historian calls Chancellorsville inconclusive. It was a stunning victory for Lee (albeit one at high cost).

I didn't mean to suggest that Chancellorsville was NOT a victory. Rather, if Antietam was tactically inconclusive, I was assumming that you were going merely on the number of casualties. And if that is the case, then Chancellorville would be Tactically inconclusive, Confederate Strategic Victory, which would be the same sort of summary result as Antietam. In other words, there are only two major military differences between Antietam and Chancellorsville:

1) Hooker retreated at Chancellorsville, while Lee retreated at Antietam

2) Lee lost his (arguably) his best general at Chancellorsville

And if we're going only on the number of men lost (as a % of army size), then Chancellorville's result summary should use the same language as the language used for Antietam.

Once again, I'm NOT arguing about the specific language used in general. I'm arguing for consistency. I think all battle summary results should be Union/Confederate Victory, or Inconclusive, period. But if we are to add strategic results in the summary box for one battle, then we must do so for other battles.

You said,

McPherson's thinking is actually summarized in the Wikipedia article.

And that's where it belongs, but if he is being used as a reason for adding "strategic victory" to the summary box, then, logically, other historians can be used for other battles.

You said,

If I had to clean them all up, I would remove all references to strategic victories (because that really is an undefined term) and leave simply victory or inconclusive.

I'm not so sure that a strategic victory is undefined, but the rest of the sentence is what I'm arguing for. Although we seem to agree on that, then why was the addition of strategic victory added to the Antietam article? Would you mind if I changed it to read merely "Union Victory"?

You said,

For those articles in which confusion might result, I would use a footnote to explain in detail.

I disagree. No footnote is required in the battle summary IF it is explained in detail in the body of the article. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say as much to me in the last 2-3 months?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You may find it easier to conduct this conversation via e-mail. I have a link in the yellow box at the top of my talk page. Civil War historians do not measure victory by the number of casualties. (For example, Gettysburg had virtually identical casualties on each side, although Confederate casualties were a bit higher proportionately.) You determine the victor by figuring out what the objectives were of each army and see who achieved them. If both, or neither, did then it becomes inconclusive. In the Maryland campaign, McClellan's objective was to destroy Lee's army by attacking it while it was divided. Lee's objective was to influence northern political opinion. So the battle is considered inconclusive because McClellan did not destroy Lee's army, but Lee did not achieve his objective either. (It would be a very controversial move to label the Wikipedia article on Antietam as a Union victory.) At Chancellorsville, Hooker's objective was to crush Lee's Army in a double envelopment and then capture the Confederate capital. Lee's objective was to prevent that. Hooker failed, Lee succeeded in an unambiguous Confederate victory. On the footnote issue, my style is to put the majority of the information into the main text, but a footnote in the box would be a courtesy to the casual reader who only has a few seconds to look at the article. McPherson is only one example of historians who consider Antietam to be a strategic victory for the North. It is not really a controversial issue at that level (only the tactical results are controversial). Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ Myth

Hi Bill, it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually a 'Christ myther'. I think there are three possibilities:

• Jesus was a historical figure to whose life story earlier myths (virgin birth, resurrection) have been added
• He is a compound of historical figures whose stories have become intertwined.
• He is a mythical figure like Osiris or Hercules.

I was genuinely asking you for examples of eyewitness and contemporary accounts of Jesus as I do have an open mind on his existence. 'Just look' is not a adequate response to that question. As I have no religious beliefs, unlike the Christian editors on the page I have nothing invested in Jesus' existence: my worldview does not depend on it being proved either way. What I object to is people who believe in the 'myth theory' being bracketed with Nazis and lunatic conspiracy theorists which seems way over the top in order to establish their lack of support in academic circles and to come from those - mainly Christians - whose minds are firmly closed on the subject.Haldraper (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Haldraper, sorry for the delayed response. In order to approach the question in an unbiased manner, there would have to be an additional possibility to the list of three you mentioned above. That is, that JC was an historical figure whose life story is accurately portrayed in the gospels.

At any rate, the reason I said "just look" was not to be in any way snide or rude. The problem is that I honestly don't have the time to list examples of eyewitness and contemporary accounts AND then defend the reliability of the documents I would cite.

If you are really interested, there are plenty of scholarly books (and books written for the layman) that discuss the reliability of the NT. Frankly, I don't even want to suggest a particular book for fear that you might think I'm referring you to Christian-propagandist material. You can easily search the Internet (e.g., Amazon.com) and read recommendations for books on both sides of the issue.

Regarding your statement, "...being bracketed with Nazis and lunatic conspiracy theorists...." Believe me, I understand your concern. However, I honestly don't think that that is what is happening. I think that analogy is this (at least, this is how I read it): the Christ Myth Theory (CMT) is so overwhelmingly rejected by the scholarly community, it is like those who deny the Holocaust.

Now, it is irrelevant whether those who deny the Holocaust are Nazis, or whatever. It's the fact there are otherwise intelligent people, even historians, that deny such a well-attested recent event. It's ludicrous, and that is why the CMT is fringe (i.e., the historicity of JC is well attested).

Or, try to imagine this: there are historians today who deny the Holocaust; what will happen in 2000 years? None of us will be around for it, but I bet you that there will be a whole lot more historians who deny that the Holocaust took place (especially if there is a world-wide cataclysmic event that destroys visual records of the Holocaust).

At any rate, thanks for dropping by. I enjoyed the conversation. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Student complaints

Perhaps the new student complaints section could be incorporated into the tenure denial section? Either as a sub-section or included in the same section? It seems the news is "suggesting" the two are related, or is that just my interpretation?--Supertouch (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes much more sense now. Thank you very much. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Amy Bishop: Things to Add

Ask on the discussion page about the time line of this incident.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/quincy_man_reca.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/us/21bishop.html

Delahunt speaks out.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100222delahunt_opportunity_missed_to_treat_amy_bishop/srvc=home&position=0

Add PDF docs to external links. This is the police reports of the '86 shooting.

http://www.necn.com/02/13/10/State-Police-investigative-report-86-Bis/landing.html?blockID=180126&feedID=4215

Here's another story that I need to research.

http://www.necn.com/02/13/10/Contradictory-tales-of-1986-Bishop-shoot/landing.html?blockID=180170&feedID=4215

More details in the IHOP incident:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/amy_bishop_was.html

Done.

Defense attorney says something is wrong with her

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/post_214.html

Probably not worth adding in.

Never took anger management course, lack a tenure a factor:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DVDPVG0&show_article=1

Someone else added this into the article.

CMT

Hi Bill, your help with the Christ myth theory is proving vital. Try to be careful with the 3RR, though, it'd be a shame if the trolls tried to have you blocked for a violation and then hijack the article. Eugene (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm watching this article very closely. And I saw the need for mediation coming a month or so ago, which is why I mentioned that no references be deleted.

But, I have to ask something. Was it me that broke the 3RR rule??? I checked before reverting it and I had only 2 reverts in a 24 hour period of time. [Pause to look up the rule and check the article history]. Ok, for a second, I was concerned that the rule applied to the total number of reverts, not on a per-person basis (which is what the rule states). I made a total of three reverts but not in a 24 hour period; it looks like about 36 hours.

At any rate, I'm going to be adding more to the CMT talk page in a few hours in order to more clearly state the "nature of the dispute". Stay tuned. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CMT

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Christ myth theory has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Eugene (talk)

Done. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Youtube of Ehrman and Finley

I love the way Finley starts to loose his cool at the end of that interview. Eugene (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was cracking up too. :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

threats

I think that the ridiculous threats are just a symptom of the opposition's desperation at this point. They see that the mediation is going against them and that the article may, in fact, pass FAC this time around in essentially its current form. Once the article is classed FA it will be extraordinarily difficult to build consensus to rewrite the whole thing in a way that either rehabilitates the theory or broadens the definition sufficiently to make the more thunderous condemnations inappropriate, thus shielding the non-existence hypothesis from being outted as nonsense. This is the endgame, and they know it.

I'm fairly confident that the threat is meaningless. The internet breeds a culture of anonymity that lends itself to posturing and over-the-top rhetoric. Just to be safe, though, I've spoken with the police and submitted a report to the Internet Crime Complaint Center. Eugene (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WLC

Evangelical can have a couple of meanings, one on which is simply fairly doctrinally conservative Christianity of a Protestant and proselytizing sort. WLC is an evangelical in this sense. As for his specific denominational affiliation (Baptist, Methodist, etc.), I don't really know. Like you said, he teaches at a Baptist church, but I'm not sure that is definitve; he could just be a guest. Eugene (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it really so mysterious? He went to Trinity Evangelical Seminary and did two masters. He teaches at Biola and Talbot. He's publishes extensively in the Evangelical Philosophical Society's journal. 173.9.50.146 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as Eugenecurry said above, he teaches at a Baptist church. If you can find a source that says specifically that he is an Evangelical-ThisOrThat, then I have no problem adding it in. I myself have added it in in the past thinking that it should be easy to find a source. I was wrong, so removed it about a month later. It's important that we be accurate in BLPs. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Licona

I think that we might want to cut Licona's blog entry since, given WP:PARITY, it could set a bad precedent of allowing self-published sources from non-professors into the "scholarly reception" section. This could lead to some difficultly with odd-ball sources once the article gets some increased visibility with its FAC and, hopefully, a day on the main page. Licona's interview in Strobel's book and the book he co-authored with Habermas weren't self-published, so they wouldn't be affected by this stance, and the blog articles by professors wouldn't be affected either. Given that Sophia has objected to Licona's article, we could consider the deletion a part of the consensus compromise and use WP:CON to prevent future attempts to include wacky online stuff from wacky online people.

Oh, I think I misunderstood. I thought you were saying to cut the Habermas/Licona book too. My mistake. Ok, then, we are in agreement. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Alithos Anesti

Thanks for the tip.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Christ myth theory

Dear Bill, I'll get back to the article, it took me ages skimming the talk page: enjoyable ages, some very fine repartee, and very good issues. Quality contributors are gathered. I would have thought that meant good things. Good things, but maybe slowly. Alastair Haines (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. The discussion can get pretty heated at times, but there are several people there who really know their stuff. Anyway, come back when you get a chance. I can promise a whole lot of fun.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your revert

Bill, could you reply to my question on Talk:Christ myth theory about your Wells revert, please? I've asked it two or three times. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I will reply when the time is appropriate. I will not dodge your questions, but we need to address the issues in a manner that is both orderly and is fair, and clear, for all of us. Please help me do it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You reverted when you wanted to, orderly or not, so please be courteous enough to give your reasons. No editor should have to ask five or six times for an explanation for a wholesale revert of their work. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the label of the revert? Your edit misrepresented biblical scholars. Go back and look. In the mean time, please read WP:Civil and stop misrepresenting what I say. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Well, apparently I'm an anti-Semite now, rendered all the more odious for disputing the label. I guess I'll have to tell my Jewish grandfather that we can't hang out anymore. Eugene (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just been reading some of the latest comments and I'm shocked. I'll speak more about it with you later today. This has got to stop, but I'm suffering from insomnia right now and I'm trying to get some sleep. Now that I've read the latest outrage of SV's, and the anti-semite accusation, it's not going to be easy to get to sleep. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Thanks for the laugh I got from you posting at AN/I "the vicious, premeditated and, needless to say, uncivil behavior of some admins on this board clearly displays administrative abuse of authority. You guys are supposed to do your best to understand the concerns of both sides of a dispute and resolve issues fairly, and not attempt to belittle, threaten, slander, and insult honest editors acting in good faith. I'm on my knees (not to be cute, but I'm literally typing this on my knees) begging all of the admins who have participated in such behavior to reconsider their actions. If these actions continue, Eugene and I will be forced to lodge a complaint, but I sincerely want to avoid that."

But, to let you know, I am neither an admin nor scared of being threatened by you. I personally saw your post as an insult, personal attack, and threat against ME and against others who commented on that thread. How about I forget your personal attack against me, and in return you and Eugene stop. If you want to take this further I will be happy to show up at whatever place you bring this to, both you and Eugene with your threats about having to escalate this further if we dont handle the situation in the way you want is bullying and does not work around here, everyone can make up their own minds and have their own opinions, if the vast majority of us dont think Slrubenstein did anything that needs to be addressed then that is our opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Cats

No :D. But it seems like it! Just 2! SpigotWho? 21:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Come play

I've just trimmed the FAQ into something that might be acceptable to both sides. Can you tell me what you think at the deletion talk page?. Also, Ari has dived in with a rash of edits in the sandbox. I don't know if you have any influence with him, but I thought this would be an opportune moment for quiet, reasoned, polite, scholarly argument on the talk page before anybody edits. If you agree, as I don't know him at all, could you run that by him? Anthony (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Anthony (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that, if we can show them what we have in mind is not too scary, and it is neutral, skeptics will be more likely to come on board. Anthony (talk)

I agree, and thanks for staying on top of this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now. We'll catch up soon. Anthony (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth

Hi, Bill. Just to make clear, there is really no doubt for me personally about the historicity of Jesus. Neither is there any doubt that myth theory is completely fringe, but the pseudo-history categorization seems completely arbitrary in a field where people can't decide what proper history is. On one side Ehrman says a real historian should not assert miracles, while on the other side Bloomquist states that historical Jesus studies is confined to "pseudo-history" because it lacks an imaginative approach. Please just think about that, when a theologian calls the mainstream position pseudo-history, can you blame me for thinking that the term is used a bit frivolously in the field? Vesal (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An Answer

User:Alastair Haines is prohibited from editing at Wikipedia. Editors who are NOT in conflict with User:Alastair Haines and support his immediate return are strongly urged to make constant references to him on-wiki following his departure and throughout his banishment. --Buster7 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR?

Maybe I've miscounted, but it looks like you might have broken 3RR on Christ myth theory. You might want to step back for awhile. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Akhilleus!!! Thanks for the heads up. I've been very careful to avoid the 3RR, as far as I understand it. I'm going to remove the POV tag tomorrow, after around 3 PM my time, unless some editors back up their claims with reliable sources. I already undid the POV tag twice today, so I got one more to go before I violate the rule. Once again, thank you!!!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, be careful. As I said, I didn't count carefully, and you seem to be under the impression that the 3RR only covers the same revert—but in fact if you make four unrelated reverts you've broken the 3RR. Also, if you keep up a pattern of waiting until the 24 hour period is up, and then reverting, you can get blocked anyway, because the rule is meant to prevent edit warring in general. So consider leaving the POV tag in place; it's not hurting anybody, and if we can establish a spirit of cooperation (I know, but be optimistic) it will end up making the article better. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Once again, thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What an Ari thing to do. --Ari (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Everybody is a comedian!  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm Back

I was on vacation. I'm back now. Eugene (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:)

The beauty of my ANI ordeal is that it began with a misunderstanding. I quite innocently used the word "libel" to describe something Verbal said about me, not knowing there is a history here of people waving the word around as a covert threat of legal action. Verbal (it being quite clear from the context that I had no such intention) then took it to AN/I. Then ensued ugliness.

And here, at my AN/I, the same admins who read evil intent in "libel" are reading the worst possible spin into every ambiguity of what I say.

I don't know, it seems kind of like a theme coursing through the experience. Sort of symphonic... actually more like operatic. Anthony (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand completely. The thing that really irritates me though is that this should never have happened. And given the fact that all conversation/debate is limited to what would essentially be called "email", it has resulted in a huge amount of time being dedicated (wasted) to responding to our critics that could have been better put to use in editing and rational discussion. Anyway, welcome back to the "land of the living".  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indef block can mean 5 minutes. E just needs to accept he was out of line. Anthony (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he knows he was out of line. It was a foolish thing he did, but I honestly believe that the powers that be have it in for him. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I doubt the article will get anywhere without him. If we can come to consensus between you, him and a few others on one side, and SV, Bruce and a few others on the other, the article will stabilize. A huge sticking point is fringe (which I notice has been removed) and pseudo-. Presently, the article has:

While the hypothesis has at times attracted scholarly attention, it nevertheless remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians,[2] most of whom regard its arguments as examples of pseudo-scholarship.[3]

I think the section beginning "most of whom..." should go, and [2] should point to Wells, Price & Doherty's confirmation. It would clearly establish CMTs status in mainstream scholarship, without any semblance of bias. I'll start a section at talk. Anthony (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what most classical historians think about the theory. It seems speculative to me. Anyone who has weighed in has usually been a critic, but they are also the ones with vested interests it seems. I agree the "most of whom..." section should be cut. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)