|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:Friedman
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, Friedman!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
Hi. The links above may give you more information on how the site is run.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Bob M, if I may ask specifically, is there anything beyond discussing it on the Talk page? People have suggested that, and I believe they are missing my point about why I posted it on the Mod page. I would love to keep it on the Talk page, but I don't see any willingness on BruceGrubb's part to listen to reason. What do you do if you believe an editor is almost single-handedly preventing meaningful discussion on the merits of an article? Where can you appeal? Can you ask a group of objective users to look at the page and the competing evidence and make a binding decision? I still stand on my point that having the page as is is akin to endorsing a conspiracy theory, as it is a fringe historical theory, not taken seriously by almost everyone in the field. If all I do is "return to the Talk page", than clearly, there is a problem with the system. And I'm not the one who's come along to change it. Friedman (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I can see that you would find it frustrating if another editor does not agree with you and you are convinced you are right. But the way the wiki is structured it's difficult to get beyond taking it up on the talk page. I am sorry you don't like that.
I would point out however that you appeared to be dismissing Carrier's opinions based on the fact that some allegations of sexual conduct existed against him. It certainly looked like an ad homonym to me.- I would also point out that those allegations were stated as fact on our Richard Carrier page and this was clearly against our standards and they have been removed - although you thought they should stay.
- While we would all like to think we are super-rational the truth is that we are human beings and building up trust and confidence with people is always a good idea before getting into battles. I note that your only contributions to the wiki have been on this issue. It is possible that you might have found your case easier to make if you had spent some time getting to know the place, making some uncontroversial edits and seeing how people respond before getting straight into something controversial.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely nowhere have I indicated that I think Carrier's indiscretions have anything to do with the quality of his research. I have clearly stated I do not believe that on multiple occasions. I regret even getting involved with the dispute on his page. The only reason I even went over there is because BruceGrubb made it clear that he was now making edits over there, and I found it suspect.
- Further, I have clearly stated multiple times why I believe that Carrier is not a good source for the page. At this point, it seems that you are ignoring what I have been saying.
- To be fair, there are a number of contributions I meant to make, but never got around to registering an account and making them. It was the article in dispute that spurred me to take action. I am a frequent reader of this site, and the fact that it would give such weight to a fringe theory is disturbing to me. Friedman (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- At the very least, would it be too much to ask if you would read an academic article which criticizes Richard Carrier's book? I believe it goes some way to supporting my claim that Carrier is sloppy in his methodology, and should not be considered a reliable source. Friedman (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- In fact I accept I was wrong about you using an ad homonym on the myth talk page. That was a different user. Sorry. My bad.
- The rest is not my field.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you please comment on my talk page post at Talk:Jesus myth theory[edit]
Can you please comment on my talk page post at Talk:Jesus myth theory?
I am referring to THIS POST.
I ask because you are more knowledgeable about the works of Richard Carrier. LinuxLover (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Please cast your vote at: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ[edit]
If you could be so kind, please cast your vote at: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ.
Thank you for your commentary on the article so far. LinuxLover (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Just doing what I can. Friedman (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Please cast your vote at: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jesus myth theory[edit]
If you could be so kind, please cast your vote at: RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Jesus myth theory.
I appreciate your knowledgeable commentary on Jesus mythicism which is a fringe view among scholars. LinuxLover (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, I don't have any formal training in it. I'm just dedicated to clearing crank ideas off what I generally consider a reliable source. Friedman (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Blocked?[edit]
@Bongolian and @LeftyGreenMario, I was blocked from editing the Richard Carrier talk page (where I was making my argument for his unreliability as a source) by Rockford The Roe(?) because he thinks I'm a Ken sockpuppet. As moderators, can you undo this? I don't know who this troll is, nor how I'm supposed to prove I'm not him (I can't even edit Rockford's talk page so I can try and convince him, like he wants me to), but if I were a troll, I'd just mass delete articles instead of trying to go through proper channels and present evidence. Friedman (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- He's a regular concern troll. You have just proven me wrong.
Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 16:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
