User talk:NBeale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Material older than 30 days is archived here

Contents

[edit] Kudos and comment

Kudos on starting the McGrath book articles - he has written so much that is notable. I noticed that in Category:Non-fiction books there are sub-cats Religious studies books, and under that a number of sub cats, one of which is Christian studies books. There is, however, no Theology books sub-cat. Do you think Theology books should be a sub cat seperate from Christian studies, or do you think there would be insufficient support for that cat? It seems to me that Theology books would be a more accurate cat than Christian studies for some books. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi KC - thank you. There are things we don't agree on, but collaboration across these differences of views/background etc.. is what makes Wikipedia great. Yes I think theology should be a separate cat - that is what is taught at universities not "Christian Studies", and of course there is non-Christian theology of various kinds as well. BTW do you think we have reached a keep consensus on the AfD Debate yet? NBeale 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Its beginning to look that way, especially as you've been editing down the summary a bit, and a few sources are starting to appear, which were my two main concerns. I'm not sure what the end result will be, but if its keep we will need to expand the non-summary part of the article, which is doable now that there are a few sources. If it is a keep, I hope for a good bit more in the sourcing department, because two of the three found in the newssearch are Christian sources and as such of course biased in favor, which will hardly help in NPOV. I notice the Belfast Telegraph article is in External links, not being used as a source yet - are you planning to do so? And apologies if this post is a little run-on and unclear, I'm sick and sleep-deprived (only common cold, but stuffy and cannot sleep.) So let me know if I'm unclear anywhere and I'll try to make more sense.
So make a new cat? Or discuss on talk of Religious studies, or one of the projects? I'm not sure the best way to proceed with this. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Know how you feel - have had annoying cold for nearly 2 weeks playing havoc with my marathon training :-(. I'm inclined to wait for a few more sources to appear and some reviews, and then do a balanced reviews section. Re the Cat, u r a much more experienced WP person than I am so I'd follow your judgement, but my inclination would be to make a separate category. The idea that there are theology books is hardly controversial: whether or not God exists the idea of God certainly does! NBeale 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sympathies on the cold. Its going around I think. I agree with the wait and rewrite, sensible approach. Regarding the experience: Yes, but this is more your field. I tend to watch controversial articles and weigh in when it appears things are getting unbalanced, or hostile - and of course I warn and block POV vandals, you know the ones who change the God article to a redirect to something derogatory, or replace Abortion with MURDER (somehow its always in all caps.) I'm really an NPOV warrior and a CON warrior more than anything. I know more about some subjects than others, but not Theology. I can ping some other editors, get input. I'm leaning towards Christian theology books, sub-cat of Religious studies, but as I said, others may have different views and I'd prefer wider input. Its a real PITA to rename a cat. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I went with the simple route - the idea has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Request for input (new cat?) so if you wish to add your input or if anyone else comes to mind who might be able to give valuable perspective on this, point them there so we have the discussion in one place. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for your kind prayer on my talk page - that was much appreciated. I'm semi-back now, barring relapse or something else interfering, and find that we have as yet received no feedback on our proposed new Cat. I've pinged them again, and suggest if we don't hear anything this time we just Be Bold and Do It. Concur? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks very much for your kind words and gently-put suggestions. You have a way with words.<3
I started out trying to edit just one section each morning, with the idea that the overall structure of the piece was as it should stay. As I finished each section I put up the Copy Edit template in the Discussion page to summon a proof-reader to check me...now I look back and am embarrassed by how those big boxes stick out...I don't see a Proof Reader anywhere on the horizon either. Underneath each of the Copy Edit templates I tried to account for what I had done that day but found that was much too vague for the other users, who were noticing changes and sometimes becoming unsettled. One user wiped out fifteen paragraphs' worth of commas, for pete's sake, when s/he put back in a single word s/he disagreed with me on by using Revert To rather than just typing the pet word back in. ACK! And Arrgghh!
So it's my current philosophy to make my work transparent - I save often to avoid edit conflicts, and religiously explain exactly what I've done (and why) in the Edit summary box. The suspicious can scan the list on the History, to see if an edit was just a comma or italics for a book title, or if Otterpops was getting political and needs some disciplining. :) The "Albert Einstein" copy edit is indeed a race to burnout, but I'm almost done with the job I took on there, and when I've finished I'm going to summon the Proof Reader (once and for all) and move on. "Albert Einstein" will not be on my watchlist.
All that I've learned will go with me, however, and if you find that you have the time to check in on me now and then, see how I'm doing on future articles, I'd really like getting your more-seasoned advice and feedback.
~ Otterpops 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Didn't you guys call for a copy editor? Oh no. Has there been some mistake? ~ Otterpops 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It was probably partly a mistake: User:Rayis added the {{copyedit}} tag to “Nature Paper” section on 27 February, probably intending to refer only to that section. But the whole article needed copy editing as is shown by the fact that since its demotion from Featured Article status little was done to improve it. User:Otterpops has done a generally good job with it—although some of her changes needed to be reverted. (Often the reversions occurred where the original text was ambiguous, and she made an unambiguously wrong interpretation—thereby pointing out the ambiguity.) Originally I too thought that she was going too fast, but now I see that a slower pace would only draw out the pain: She has been copy-editing for two weeks now; at a slower pace it would have been months. Inasmuch as the page is semi-protected, there are no bad-faith edits, and it is not urgent to review every change. --teb728 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So is that a Keep for the 747 argument then?

Hi RJH. I note your comment - I infer that this means you'd vote keep but for the record it'd be great if you stated this. Thanks NBeale 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope it's just a comment. Effectively I was undecided, so I left the preference for others to choose. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humor and Boeing gambit

Well, it is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia, not uncyclopedia.JoshuaZ 23:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gambits

You are reverted by 4 separate editors on the redirect and squeal "its not fair - lets have an afd to see what others think". I waste my time fiddling with templates to do it the legit way that you asked for so that other editors could comment and you regard this as unbecoming stealth behaviour???? I haven't queried anyone's comments on the AfD - all I have done is respond to your comments on my vote and point to links in a neutral way. I have not rallied the troops [1], messaged admins [2] or tried to get policy changed to suit may agenda [3].

You cannot have this article both ways - it is either about this phrase or more general in which case it should be redirected or merged. If it is about this phrase then NPOV means it MUST be presented in the authors own words - how is that making the article worse? Trying to get me banned from the article is a new low point in your editing career.

As for losing on the AfD - I never considered it in those terms or canvassed votes to bolster my "side"[4]. I have also never colluded with anyone else to avoid 3RR [5]. Rather than accusing someone else of disruptive editing you should be taking the plank out of your own eye. Sophia 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well spotted, Sophia! This is amazingly sneaky behaviour by NBeale. Snalwibma 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:747 argument

I have great respect for Polkinghorn & his work, and am glad to see editors on WP interested in contructive theist arguments in the field of the philosophy of religion. However, neither that fact, nor your your on Prof Polkinghorn's website, make me want to reconsider my vote on the AfD. Indeed, your involvement with Polkinghorn and his web presence - and especially your involvement in Polkinghorn's debate in the public sphere with Dawkins, make me wonder if perhaps you have the sort of significant conflict of interest that ought to give you much more caution when editing articles like this.
Neither does the fact that others have used this theory as a point of criticism against Dawkins sway my argument. My vote was not based on my own religious beliefs, or my opposition (or support for that matter) of Dawkins. They were based on the merits of the topic -- I believe it is better suited to fit within the article on the book itself. That some have set this argument up as a straw man in effigy of Dawkins does not make this notable enough - for me - to spin it off into its own article outside of the book.
In closing, I don't know that contacting editors who vote in a way you disagree with in order to change their vote is in accord with the policies of WP. At the very least it is unseemly, and combined with your comments about other editors (instead of the topics in question) it reflects poorly on the very things you stand for. -- Pastordavid 02:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • NBeale - please engage in the discussion at Talk:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, and do not just keep reverting carefully considered and well-argued edits. Also, please stop scattering baseless personal attacks, in which you make wholly unwarranted assumptions about my motives, in your edit summaries, on the AfD discussion, and on numerous other people's talk pages. Snalwibma 22:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit 2 and AfD tactics

Congrats on the keep. While I agree with you on the merit of the article (and voted so in the AfD), I think it may be worth reconsidering tactics in the event of future AfDs. I know how instinctive it is to become defensive when an article of yours comes under AfD (not unlike a cornered mongoose), and I've reacted the same way as you did many times. I'm finding that taking a deep breath, waiting a minute or two, trying to address possible issues, and trying to find a middle ground may be more effective approaches to "winning" an AfD. Now that it's over, reread the discussion flow in the AfD and talk pages and reconsider the benefit of alternative approaches. Ive been guilty of the same myself and I hope this helps keep your blood pressure down. Alansohn 04:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise words. One should try not to loose one's cool! NBeale 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your list - AfD

I've nominated your list for AfD; letting you know as a courtesy. We'll get the community's wisdom on such a list, no doubt. Cheers. Metamagician3000 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that the AfD is almost certain to succeed, and given your view and mine that the information is encyclopedic, there should be some alternative way to do this that people will accept. Too late at night to think of any, right now. DGG 08:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't dispair of reason prevailing, but I agree it's worth considering a plan b in case it doesn't. NBeale 08:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm still torn between delete and keep but I've added quite a few who support humanism so I guess one side effect of this AfD has been to highlight some missing articles on some FRS so thanks in order I guess. I'm still with delete as I do not think "atheist" or "humanist" to be religious stances per se but whilst we're forced to group these disparate views in this way I might as well add supporters of humanism. I do not see why dead people are excluded. Their stance remains as valid today as it did a few years ago. Ttiotsw 11:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article International Society for Science and Religion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, an article you recently created, Ernan McMullin, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Real96 06:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded to this bizzaire action on Real96's talk page and in the article!! NBeale 07:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My complaints about your behaviour

Hello, NBeale! First I should of course state the various ways in which I value your contribution.

  1. You do cite your sources, I thank you for doing so.
  2. Your edits often serve to balance mine and other editors, for example here you balanced my take on Shermer's review, and sometimes I get the good feeling that we are complementing each other to reach a more neutral presentation.
  3. You have created many articles that are relevant and helpful.

I think your dedication to presenting the theist view is highly valuable, especially when it is used in the right place. However, I feel you waste your own time and much of our time by focusing on quantity instead of quality. Here are the various points that upset me.

  1. Your create articles with a heavy bias, often based on original research and synthesis of sources, and you aren't very subtle about the POV-pushing either. Then you essentially dump sources without using them to elaborate the article, the sources aren't that helpful to the reader, but essentially only serve establish notability and make the article survive an AfD, see this short discussion.
  2. When we get upset at the many ways these articles violate Wikipedia's content policies, you accuse us of wanting to censor and suppress information. That is obviously not at all the case! Note that in rewriting your source dump at the 747 Gambit, I added the critical opinions of Graham Oppy and Richard Swinburne, because I find them relevant and interesting.
  3. And this is what annoys me the most. You don't even bother with an honest attempt at creating a neutral article. It's as if you expect someone else to add the contrary views. If you are creating an article, then it is polite to try your very best to give a charitable presentation of the other side. Look at the external links section of the argument from nonbelief. I picked all those link myself (except the first one), it's basically 5 theist sources versus 2 atheist ones. And I'm also recommending a theist writer, Daniel Howard-Snyder, as a starting point to explore the argument because Schellenberg, who presented the argument, doesn't seem to have a web-page.

If you really want to refute Dawkins, then let's write interesting and high quality articles on the arguments for and against the existence of God to show that the philosophy of religion is an interesting topic. However, if you instead continue the, in my opinion, rather unchristian approach to refuting and attacking Richard Dawkins, I will request for comment on your behaviour. Thank you for listening, and I apologize for being harsh, but I (and some others) feel your energy is misdirected. --Merzul 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above, you edit in a way that generates work for other editors. 1Z 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose creating any article generates work for other editors. Otherwise most of the "work" I generate - though not all - seems to be when other editors try to supress the carefully refed information that I add. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, if trying to get articles deleted (and reverting edits) isn't trying to supress information then what is it? You may say that you are justified in trying to supress the information but I don't see how it can be denied that this is what the people who push for this are trying to do. NBeale 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


"Well I suppose creating any article generates work for other editors". Not to a major extent. It is possible to write in a balanced way". "if trying to get articles deleted (and reverting edits) isn't trying to suppress information then what is it?". Implementation of policies about POV, notability etc.1Z 12:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Those may or may not be good reasons for suppressing the information - but it doesn't alter the fact that this is suppressing information. The correct response to concerns about NPOV is to balance the article, not to delete it. NBeale 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So your inclusionist stance would support categories such as {{cat:Christians who are murderers}} and {{cat:Ordained Christians who are paedophiles}}. Surely to ban these would be suppression? I personally would see it as pushing an agenda which is why I would vote to delete them. Would you revert a Hindu who has sources that consider Christianity to be polytheistic or would that be suppression? Let's tag the whole of Christianity as delusional using Dawkins as references - I hope you will support this inclusion of properly referenced facts. Sophia 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sophia. If it were a properly referenced fact that someone was a Christian and a Murderer I don't see how I or anyone else could reasonably object to a list of such people, though we might want to distinguish people who were converted after they committed a murder from the others. St Paul would presumably head the list! I think it's Muslims who suggest that Christianity is polytheistic and I would certainly not try to supress the fact that eg "Some Muslims suggest that Christianity is polytheistic" if it were refed, though it would probably be fair to add "although Christian Theologian affirm that The Trinity is one God" or that RD suggests that Christianity, along with any other theism is a delusion. I can't see any valid objection to including such information - though I would of course object to "RD demonstrates that ...." which would not be NPOV. NBeale 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The correct response to POV is to fix it yourself, or not do it in the first place.1Z 17:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi 1Z. It's NPOV to say "A suggests X" - we are not obliged to say "and B suggests not X" every time. The idea is that together we make WikiPedia better, not that each editor has to demonstrate perfection! NBeale 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You are obliged to make articles as NPOV as you can in the first place. The point is to be adequate not perfect. Most editors do not garner criticism the way you do.1Z 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi 1Z. I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV - as I just have - and you will see that this is a misunderstanding. we make the article balanced together - no individualt can be expected to balance the article all on their own. NBeale 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi NB. Have just come across this. Interesting to see these comments from you and others. Just one small contribution from me: I suggest you go to the dictionary and look up the word "together". I think it is generally taken to mean something more like pulling in the same direction, not in opposing directions in the fond hope that opposing forces will somehow create a balance. Maybe turn back a few pages and look up "cooperation" while you have the dictionary down, as well! I have also had an interesting time reading your blog, and have noted your canvassing of support against various AfDs, along with various frank admissions that you see WP as a medium for POV-pushing! ;-) Snalwibma 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma. Glad you enjoy my Blog. Seems that we have another English Irregular Verb: "I have reasonable opinions, you push your POV, he is a Troll" :-) Please realise that everyone has points of view, and get over it! NBeale 08:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is fine to have a POV, but I think you are going to far in pushing your POV in places where one must be more sensitive. The Richard Dawkins article should be a biography about a living person, that is, a person, who in spite of his deluded behaviour, the Christian religion teaches one should love and forgive. Do you not accept this? I think all our biographies need to be sensitive, kind and charitable in their treatment of the subject. They should not be a platform for attack, and a place to insert quotations that are insulting. --Merzul 10:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Merzul. I indeed love and (to the extent that he may have wronged me eg in making foolish remarks against my Lord and my fellow-Christians) forgive him. However this does not alter the fact that I consider some of his views profoundly mistaken and harmful and that it is doing a service to fellow-Wikipedia users to draw their attention to notable reasoned criticism of his views, so that they can make up their own minds on the basis of well-refed information. I hope that's OK with you? NBeale 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's an admission of POV. Why not draw attention to both sides of the argument? 1Z 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi 1Z. We all have POVs (see above)! When I am writing a new article (like Argument from Love) I do of course try to give pros and cons. But in articles like Dawkins there is already massive representation of one side of the argument so it's a question of adding things that overall balance the article. NBeale 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasonable criticism

I more than welcome reasonable criticism of Dawkins's views, and were we to rely on Dawkins in our presentation of say God, then you are justified in throwing all the criticism in there, but I see some (certainly not all of your edits) as violating the spirit of our policies on the biographies of living people. I mean, what is the following?

The cultural theorist Charlie Gere suggests that: "It is extraordinary in this day and age that anyone can still believe in such a cruel, heartless and frankly improbable figure as Richard Dawkins...dictating to us what we should and should not believe"

A cruel, heartless and frankly improbable figure?? You call that notable and reasoned criticism of Dawkins's views? I think that's a malicious personal attack, and is in no way appropriate on a biography, no matter who the source is. --Merzul 12:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an element of irony here (D suggests that God is cruel, heartless and improbable) but irony sometimes gets lost in translation. I'm sure Gere didn't intend it as a personal attack, and nor did I: it's a philosophical point made with some wit that the tropes often used against God can be applied in other directions. NBeale 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the context. Dawkins attack on an invisible being that only some people can sense is turned around into a very witty philosophical point, brilliant, and then it's okay to call him cruel and heartless, because he said that about the God as described in the old testament. In any case, this context is not lost in "translation", it is lost because you cut material from various sources without much care for how things fit together. --Merzul 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unrebuttable rebuttal :)

Good morning! Some good news, and some bad news about the argument from love.

At the very least, you have to admit it is dialectically awesome in exelcis, whatever that means. :) --Merzul 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very disappointed...

I'm very disappointed that your refuse to accept the concerns raised at Talk:H. Allen Orr. --Merzul 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NBeale please read WP:BLP and I warn you that problems of this type are taken very seriously by the foundation. If you continue to unbalance this article then an RfC will be needed to make sure we are not going to hit problems. Sophia 18:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
NBeale - I have just restored something closer to the consensus version of H. Allen Orr. Please discuss and propose what should be done before dumping great lumps of text back into the article. Snalwibma 07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About your Current Dispute

Regarding the dispute that you are currently having with a few other editors, I wonder if you could please look at the following and let me know whether or not this would be something you would be willing to take part in. Thank you. -- Pastordavid 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi PD: This sounds good. What is a "mentor-editor" exactly. NBeale 07:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good morning. I have added some more, explaining a little more clearly (I hope) what I mean. -- Pastordavid 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H. Allen Orr -- procedural quibbles???

This is at the very core of my objection to your editing. And you call this procedural quibbles? The policies are there for a reason...

  1. It's our obligation to do our absolute best in representing people's views, not just select the most biting personal attacks they have used. Please, take a disinterested look at what you have picked from Orr's review: every sentence is questioning Dawkins's ability to reason, none of it reflects Orr's extensive discussion and his justifications for disagreeing with Dawkins.
  2. It should be obvious that a biography entry should at all time give a fair reflection of a person's notability. It is an unfair reflection of this man's contribution, if we were to dedicate an entire paragraph on his review of Dawkins, while just briefly mentioning his science output.

The only reason I have to cite policy is because you are reluctant in applying such intuitive criteria of what is fair and respectful. I find your fascination quite fascinating, given all that has been said on that page. --Merzul 10:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • NBeale - which bits of what people are saying to you do you not understand? Please, please, please discuss the way you think the H. Allen Orr article should go on its talk page. Snalwibma 11:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but I take back some of what I said above, NBeale's recent edits are much appreciated and are going in the right direction. This might not satisfy everyone, but this is a step in the right direction. --Merzul 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Beale

Just assuming that this might be you, given the similarity between it and what you have said about yourself. If so, may I suggest that you not edit this article. When it comes to this sort of autobiography-writing/editing on Wikipedia, it is best to not only avoid impropriety, but to avoid all appearence of impropriety. -- Pastordavid 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify -- your edits appear to be pretty NPOV. It just has the appearence of being inappropriate (editing your own article), and is definitely a conflict of interest. Might I suggest only editing it to remove obvious vandalism. If errors in fact creep into the article, I would suggest letting other editors know (through the talk page), and let them fix it. -- Pastordavid 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes thank you this is helpful. The person who created it told me that it had been tagged as like a resume (understandable since the main source he used was Debretts) so I thought I should probably and with some trepidation flesh it out a bit, with great caution as per the guideline. But it would be best to sit back and let others (if they are so inclined - there are many many more interesting subjects) take it further. NBeale 06:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nicholas, I wanted to apologize for my above moralizing comments. I noticed this article and commented on it. I see no serious problems with it, but I'm almost certain someone will AfD it unless you provide more third party sources, I think that's what the {{likeresume}} tag implies. In any case, I enjoyed reading it! --Merzul 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Beale

One editor has suggested that there ought to be an article about my late father. I am far from convinced that it would be appropriate for me to write one (:-)) but there is a fair amount of material (Times & Telegraph obits, Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society etc..). I'm touched to see that Roderick Little in his 2005 Presidential Invited Address to the ASA listed him as one of his statistical mentors. NBeale 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/b/e/User_talk%7ENBeale_a4c3.html"