User talk:BruceGrubb

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

These are excellent Bruce. Will definately be using them in my defense. Many thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Method

Burke's in Day the Universe raised an interesting question-- does data drive a theory or does a theory determine what is data.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

MLM

Thanks, Bruce, for your good and continuing work in preserving the Multi-Level Marketing page. DougHill (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

There's a straight-forward guide at WP:AFDHOWTO. Let me know if you have any questions.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

New Christ Myth Theory FAQ

User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ That I am working on.

Thanks for this one. A few personal thoughts: It seems to me that it is exceedingly difficult to have an entirely dispassionate opinion on this issue that is not (suspicious of being) coloured by vested interests. That atheists, opponents and critics of religion in general or Christianity in particular should find it attractive is expected; that believers and people sympathetic to Christianity will reject it is expected; that experts of the subject will reject it will surprise no-one, as accepting it would negate their research; and the opinion of non-experts, even historians, is not taken very seriously, since they have by definition not studied the subject enough to form a valid opinion. It looks like a vicious circle where everyone is caught in their preconceptions and everyone is driven towards answering the question "Did Jesus of Nazareth (as portrayed in the Gospels, even if only very generally) exist as a historical person?" before they can assess what little evidence there is, and all, or virtually all of it is contested (i. e., its authenticity, or its relevance). In short, everyone has a compelling personal reason to believe their version of the conclusion before they can even think of how to get there.

But skimming through the FAQ, it seems to me that many (secular or at least non-conservative) relevant scholars are, to an extent, mythers, because they all agree that the Gospels are, to a considerable degree, suspect as a historical source and thus mythical – as you say, the real issue is how much of it is mythical? – and what is (in their eyes) certain about the life of the person portrayed in the Gospels is so little that it would hardly matter anyway, and bear only the slightest resemblance to the figure portrayed in the Gospels. (As opposed to other historical personages which could almost be described as "semi-historical", such as Alexander the Great.) OK, perhaps there was really a spiritual teacher and healer called Jesus in Galilee in the first century of the Christian era, but how many figures like him (as recognisable to a contemporary) would have existed back then? Perhaps such figures were as common back then as they are now, and if one of the charismatic leaders around now ended up founding a religion (or spiritual movement) dominant two millennia into the future, we would have no way of knowing because he and his (or even she and her) following would appear to us as "yet another religious nutcase" or "yet another guru" or "yet another faith-healer" or whatever. In short, it seems that nothing really meaningful can be said about Jesus of Nazareth that can be regarded as certain as agreed upon by mainstream historians, and nothing really meaningful in terms of the historical person can be extracted out of the Gospels, which is a conclusion so thoroughly negative (but, to atheists at least, liberating) that it essentially amounts to the same as the Christ Myth Hypothesis (as it should properly be called).

That said, my suspicion is that if Jesus of Nazareth really existed, he was nothing like most people imagine him, or want him to have been. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Chick publications

Thanks for helping to clean up the article! The tone was beginning to sound a bit like the material being criticized! (I was worried that Chick might issue a pamphlet on Wikipedia! And it would be totally factual!  :) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, the article still needs citations, just like every other article in Wikipedia, whether "the sun shines during the day" or "this way is up." Making mere "claims" to refute Chick "claims" is hardly encyclopedic. One loud voice against another. Please respond on article discussion page. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Bruce, there's a question for you at Talk:Christ myth theory#I Howard Marshall, in case you missed it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Bruce, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't add citation templates to that article. Writing the refs out by hand makes loading time, particularly for preview and diffs, much faster, especially when there are such a large number of references. Also, per the MoS, punctuation goes after ref tags, and it's really not good form to place ref tags inside sentences if it can be avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am following the MoS: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ethnology

I think by "historical anthropology" you mean "ethnohistory" and not "ethnoloby." Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The three are closely related to the point they are called by the other names. When I learned anthropology the term was "historical anthropology" with "ethnology" thrown in for a pseudonym.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Buxton University

Hi BruceGrubb,

I saw you commented on my claim about wes.org's WENR newsletter not being a reliable source. You seemed to be one of the people who actually talked some sence. I am not arguing against a connection between Buxton University and instantdegrees.com (there seems to be enough evidence for that from reliable sources)

I am asking for evidence that they are also connected to Canterbury and Ashford, as is claimed in that WENR "article". That is quite a claim, so how is this mediocre WENR newsletter sufficient grounds for this to appear in encyclopedic content? I ask you, its crazy. Would appreciate your two-cents on the Buxton University article discussion page as what goes in that article seems to be getting controlled by people with an agenda. Thanks Monsig (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, BruceGrubb. You have new messages at EyeSerene's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Further reply on my talk page. EyeSerene^talk 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

MonaVie Article

Hi thanks for your help on the Neutrality noticeboard I had no idea that article carried so much weight in the articles POV and proved without a doubt that everything in the lead paragraph is the truth. I left a reply on the board again can you reply?

If we are to resolve the edit war I just need to know if there are any other sources there or if it is just that one that I need to look over better. Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

Are you guys still holding a discussion. If not aren't you suppose to close it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of others' comments

If you believe your removal of the collapse templates in this edit is appropriate somehow, please follow WP:DR rather than edit-warring over it. You are interfering with others' comments, not your own, even in your prior removal of them here. Note that in response, I collapsed only my own comments. If you believe I don't have the right to do so, follow WP:DR and get some consensus on your side. The second time I did this, I simply restored the collapse templates, as all the material in them was either my own comments or added by others while the templates were already in place. See WP:TPO --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tag

All OR issues aside, the {undue} tag has nothing to do with facts or even verification. It's about WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and the question is whether mentioning a fact is giving too much attention to it, more than reliable sources do, and in a way which gives the impression the fact is seen as more important than sources see it. Of course, there's too little weight as well as too much, so it depends on the sources, the claim, and editorial discretion. Ocaasi ^c 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

More work.

In addition to your anthropological excursion at Weston A. Price, I thought you might be interested in expanding/checking Weston A. Price Foundation, which is in need of some attention, as well as Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which I just started and needs it even more. Also, I noticed that Dental_extraction#History makes zero mention of any craze or controversy ever. The article is like a Dental office pamphlet. Maybe you'd want to try some conservative additions regarding the history of tooth extractions and any controversy or criticism that surrounded/surrounds it. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 10:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Weston Price]

BruceGrubb, you have been edit warring over this content for months now. Note that spacing out your reverts over weeks or months does not make it any less of an edit-war, one you are going against established consensus as you well know after numerous trips to various noticeboards. If you insist on edit warring your preferred version into the article against article consensus, I will be forced to report your edit warring to the appropriate noticeboard for sanctions. Please desist. Yobol (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your version either, Yobol and this is NOT the proper place to discuss it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you chose to revert, once again, (this time while logged out), I have filed a edit war report here. Yobol (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

Bruce, in of your edits on Nielsen Ratings, one of the sentences just doesn't parse right to me. The specific part that is unclear is

the Nielsen ratings one TV per household three perhaps four network model

I would have clarified myself but I don't know what you're trying to say.. can you reword it?

I didn't put that in so I have no idea what it trying to say either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Knight 1909, 1906, etc

Hi. Not sure what the point, or information, was that you were trying to get into the article. Could you concisely describe it here? Just curious. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying get anything in the article. I merely pointed out the reference was wrong using RS and the other editors jumped on the assumption and OR bandwagon. However the reasoning that was presented by some editors shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what OR even is and a major disconnect between OR and NOTOR and that is the real issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If that's all that it was about, i.e. pointing out that the RS was wrong and the info shouldn't be in Wikipedia, I'd tend to agree, unless someone could give some reason why the evidence in the 1906 RS might possibly not disprove Knight's claim about 1909.

If you don't mind, may I ask you about another one of your messages? [1] What do you mean by "objective truth" in that message? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

James Burke spends about 5 minutes explaining it but in a in a nutshell "objective truth" is the idea that there a form of truth independent of your view of how the world works. For instance once it was the truth that head size was evidence of intelligence--this is where the idea of super intelligent beings having large heads comes from. In another example Burke gives it was the truth that the peasant stories of "these here rocks falling from the sky" were the product of imagination--then France had itself a revolution with the peasants in charge and 'suddenly the stories became astronomically vital data'.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at that James Burke episode on Youtube. It was broken up into 5 parts on Youtube and here they are with my compliments. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory article problems

Thanks for your note. I've been away from the computer or I'd have responded sooner. First, I'd say that it's a touchy issue, and there's a history of problems which probably makes veteran editors there especially leery of bold changes. Second, there are so many scholarly views of this topic that gaining a consensus of them may require more than four citations. Third, it's often unhelpful to use arguments like "But Smith and Jones disagree". Relying on editors to track down the sources and find the line you're referring to may be asking too much. Instead of a general citation, it's often better to quote the actual text. What I've found to be a good way of working through issues like this is to invite everyone to assemble excerpts from sources first. If you have a dozen or two definitions on hand then it's easier for everyone to see the most obvious ways to proceed. Fourth, it's good to remember that this is a term in popular usage and we shouldn't give just a narrow academic definition. The lead should cover how the term is seen and used. Also, remember that the lead should summarize the text. If the definition isn't already there then it shouldn't be added to the lead yet. Fix the body of the article first, then rewrite the lead to summarize it. And lastly, be patient.   Will Beback  talk  02:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

concerning verifiability

Bruce, I hope you will assume good faith on my part and not see this as an atempt to disrupt the discussion at the V page. I write this not because of anything you have ever written to or about me but because of comments others have recently made.

Also, you may not agree with me but it is clear to me that there is not yet a consensus concerning Blueboar's proposal, and the discussion concerning it is not yet over.

I have been going back over past discussions with you and it seems to me that your major concern (aside from operationalizing what are "reliable sources" and how to use them) is that WP not include misleading articles or material. In fact, I think that this is something that motivates many of the people who have been participating in discussions concerning verifiability.

Am I right? I ask because it is only now that I have really begun to think of this, not in terms of misleading statements, but misleading articles which I think is the ultimate issue.

If I am right, it seems to me that this gets to the very notion of what an encyclopedia is.

Which leads me to why I am writing here. I don't know about you but it has always puzzled me that WP does not actually have a policy that this is an encyclopedia. You have to go to WP:NOT - which is about what WP is NOT, right? - to find what WP IS, namely, an encyclopedia.

Maybe this is just all to obvious, that WP is a wiki (see Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy) and WP is an encyclopdia.

But when I look back over all the discussion you were heavily involved in at V, it strikes me that maybe we really do need a policy on WP is an Encyclopedia, or a new section here "WP is not misleading". It seems to me that "misleading" is an issue that deserves attention independent of V. I am NOT saying that this necessarily means V cannot or should not be improved. I am just saying that while "verifiability" may be a means to ensure that articles are not misleading, I think V has other purposes, and also that V is not sufficient to guarantee that articles will not be misleading - not even V+RS+CS. I am now thinking that we needs something in addition, to address the question of "misleading." Maybe a section in NOT, or maybe as part of a new policy on what an encyclopedia is.

Since my discussions with you sparked this line of thought, you are the obvious first person to turn to for feedback; if you think this is a bad idea, I figure most others will too. Moreover, if you think it is a good idea, I think you would have the most ideas about how to write it up.

You don't need to reply immediately if you want time to mull this over. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I full agree with the idea of "WP is not misleading" though in some respect this dovetails with NPOV. If go over to Jesus myth theory you will see another example of where WP:V breaks down--the majority of the sources are reliable but the article has major SYN problems even after mammoth efforts to clean it up. The problem there is not with the editors but with the material--many times it is not clear just what point the various authors are making and if the pro and con sides are even debating the same issue. As a result you have what is still a meandering mess of an article.

The Weston Price article is another place where WP:V breaks down as many of the more modern source are debating how Price's work is used by others rather than how Price himself used and presented his work. As a result you have a somewhat misleading article that avoids the reason why Weston Price is important now and the misuse use of his work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I guss my question then is, do you think that we need an actual policy (a new policy) saying "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" to spell out what we mean by "encyclopedia?" Or, as an alternative, to add to the WP:NOT a new subsection, "Not misleading?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" would clarify anything as there are many ways for a Encyclopedia to be structured. For example my "Out of this World" (1978) Encyclopedia is written like a series of individual pieces than the way the Encyclopedia Britannica is set up and they are both different from how Anime Encyclopedia 978-1880656648 is set up but they are all Encyclopedias. Also the term "Encyclopedia" doesn't promise accuracy which is our main problem (Mysteries of the Unknown comes to mind)

Now the addition of a 'Not misleading section' under WP:NOT with a tie back NPOV I think is a great idea.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear BruceGrubb: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation straw poll

Hello Bruce, this is just to let you know that we are having a straw poll about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about Wikipedia:Verifiability. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

Hello Bruce, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five

Hello Bruce, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello BruceGrubb. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI for User Ronz

Concerning a pattern of behavior not suitable for Wikipedia, by a user you've had dealings with, please list examples Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronz_behaviour Dream Focus 22:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)