User talk:El Sandifer

Please note that I do keep tabs on current conversations I'm having on talk pages, and that things do not need to be reposted here for me to see them. If I haven't replied to you, simply drop a note here directing me to the Talk page, and I will be happy to.

Archiving of this page happens roughly whenever I feel like it. Generally, I won't archive something until it's been dead for at least a week.

---

Thanks for your invitiation to contribute. I'm afraid I may not be much use because I am only dimly familiar with critical theory. I am much more at ease with the philosophy of science and the social sciences - particularly Marxist philosophy of science, and the new continental approach to science studies like Bloor and Latour. I'm afraid my Marx is a touch more on the sociological side than Adorno's. Diderot 20:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we'd be happy to have some focus on philosophy of science and on Latour. Critical theory is such an umbrella term that a variety of perspectives would be helpful. And I'm so totally hateful of Latour that someone who can actually talk about him with sympathy would be really nice. :) Snowspinner 21:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give it a shot. Latour is pretty distainful of critical theory, so it should be interesting. I should note that I am not. I am hostile towards Sokal, Bricmont and Weinberg because on first reading them I had already read some Latour and I knew that they had misunderstood - or more likely carefully misread - Latour's discussion of relativity. I didn't entirely agree with Latour, but I can recognise a snow job when I see one. But I don't have any substantial opinion - or even knowledge - of critical theory. I am sympathetic towards Latour primarily because I've seen him dumped on undeservingly, but my epistemology of knowledge tends somewhat further towards the unreconstructed, dialectically materialist Marx than Latour. Diderot 11:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is always going to be an exception in terms of what it links to, but usually Wikipedia namespace links are considered harmful. Anyway, the rule is not absolute. There are few absolute rules on Wikipedia beyond the core principles of GFDL, NPOV and wikiquette, and even those don't have 100% support. Angela. 04:18, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why you need {{msg:CriticalTheory}} in a box. If it was just text links to those pages, I expect there would be far less objection. Anyway, as long as it no longer links to the Wikipedia namespace, I don't intend to be involved in the arguments about it. I don't have any strong feelings either way. It was only the namespace issue that bothered me. Angela. 15:14, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

not prefered?

what is that supposed to mean "not prefered on the wikipedia"??? Sam Spade 04:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Your saying that the clinical term "homosexual" is not acceptable on the wiki, but "straight" is an acceptable way to refer to heterosexuals? The reason why I like encyclopedias is that they are a bastion of truth, one of several weapons against political correctness and other forms of factual relativism. I don't believe the wiki has surrendered to using trendy terms in place of ones which have a more precise meaning. And since when is Heterosexuality a gay-related article? Thats really very sad. Sam Spade 05:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

In case you havn't noticed I oppose political correctness with every fiber of my being. It is synonymous w newspeak in my view. That being said, I assure you I don't intend to hunt about on gay related pages for debates over what they'd like to call themselves. I have learned my lesson on heteronormativity, its better to allow innaccuracy than to have to discuss such distressing topics w people who are more motivated, and more concentrated in their POV's on those subjects. I'm an unpaid volunteer after all! :) Sam Spade 05:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

strikethroughs

I understand what you are trying to do on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel and it's fine, but the way you were doing some of the strikethroughs was making the entire rest of the document struck through (at least on my browser). For example:

<s>:::: some text </s>

doesn't work because it results in invalid html which results in it displaying incorrectly (as described above). I'll continue to try to fix it so your stuff is correctly struck through. Nohat 20:45, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

response

I appreciate your intervention perhaps you can bookmark my talk page and make sure he does not vandalize it? thanks all the same. GrazingshipIV 00:20, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Re: The Local Church

My apologies for not explaining myself and also for any terse comment in the "Edit Summary" for Local Church controversy. I mean well. Your comments on spinoffs are apt:

Fine. I'm just very opposed to spinoff articles. I'd rather see the stuff get edited for POV and kept in the right article. I think moving it to spinoff articles is too often a cover, in that it allows POV junk to fester. I'd rather have this all stay on Local churches and get worked on than fragmented. Since the content is currently redundant, that's not a big deal - just make the edits to Local churches and let this be a redirect. Snowspinner 04:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I reply:

You are completely right. I feel the same way. I think there should be just one article. But that article keeps getting censored to fit the POV of the Local Church alone. Sorry, I couldn't explain sooner — I was in the middle of editing the page and had forgotten to log in. Have a look at Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses; nothing NPOV sticks. For that matter, look at the history of Yahweh and Talk:Yahweh: the Jehovah's Witnesses kept reverting it because they believe that "Jehovah" is the only name for God and all else must go.--Administer 05:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any other way to keep NPOV discussion of such controversial groups along with NPOV discussion of criticism?--Administer 05:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Manual of Style Re:Sexuality

Snowspinner - just to let you know, the manual of style is, almost more than anything else, supposed to represent what all/most wiki contributors think should be our style. There should be near unanimity before anything is written there. If there is an objection (and to me, it appears there is), you should hammer it out on talk before you put it in the manual. I thought rather than revert you I'd give you a chance to withdraw it. →Raul654 21:56, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

(While I think we should note Raul's comment above) I'm amazed by your assertiveness in editing, specifically on the manual of style in response to Sam Spade's reverts. I would have attempted to enter a long discussion, however, considering I have already invited him to the Sexuality Terminology project (which he kindly copy edited) without results. Anyways, you're tough. Hyacinth 22:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I've replied to Raul on his page - essentially, I think that, since it was already an element of the style guide, an objection needs to be founded on something less subjective and more verifiable than Spade's personal experience - until a substantive objection is offered, I don't think there is a lack of consensus.

As for being tough... I prefer bold. :) Snowspinner 22:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You are neithert when you are wrong, arbitrary, and autocratic. I'm getting a bit tired of your excesses of ego. Sam Spade 22:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)