User talk:86.136.81.80

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia relies on Neutral Point of View

One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. That is, we need to present the current state of scholarship, no matter how wrong or misguided we may feel that that consensus is.

In the Olmec article, we do mention theories that are outside the mainstream (Mormon and African-origin), but they need to stated in a straightforward, passive way.

If you would like to elaborate on these alternative theories, please use the Olmec Talk page.

Thanks for your understanding. Madman 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forensic Evidence is Neutral

And that which is at hand, cannot be ignored. We have to wonder why people would choose to do this. If the skeletal evidence says it, the colossal statues say it, and the writings say it. I think sticking with the evidence and not benighted speculation, is as neutral as anyone could hope for.

You can't argue with forensic evidence. Neutral is not Eurocentric. Neutral starts with fact and truth - if that cannot be deduced from "colossal clues" then science helps us out on this one, thank goodness.

You might miss my point. It is not up to us to interpret the evidence. We must present the consensus view. We can mention alternative views, but they must label them as such and cannot use anything but neutral words. Thanks, Madman 14:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensus

Then the world really IS flat, then!? Alas, that was the "concensus" not too long ago...

First of all, the fact is that most educated people in the 15th century (for instance) understood the world to be round based on easily observable phenomena, including ships apparently receding into the ocean the further away they sailed.
Second, if we were writing an encyclopedia during the 15th century, we would indeed state that the consensus was that the world was flat, but that an alternative explanation was that it was round or spherical. Madman 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

A minority of educated people in Europe had learned that the world was round. A smaller minority of an uneducated elite came to the "concensus" that it was flat, and tried to impose this view on all and sundry. Meanwhile, the rest of the world had been circumventing it, and also constructing massive monuments and calendars based on geometric and astronomic scientific calculations deduced from a "round or spherical" model of the world for many millenia.

We are not in the 15th century. And the fact is, we are not even in the 21st century, if we take those first calendars into account. But based on the argument that some people choose to call truth and fact "alternative explanation" this would, perhaps, explain why this age is indeed referred to as the "21st century". If the "concensus" that the world was flat and the "alternative explanation (speculation)" was that the world was round, it should be relatively easy to conclude that "concensus" is not reliable methodology, whatsoever, and should be abandoned like a ship that never could float in the first place. This so called paralysed "concensus" is largely "European consensus". For a start if the rest of the world (which somehow always seems to be excluded from the "consensus boardroom") were to be consulted they could have "explained" in elementary terms that:

1. The world is and always has been round. It never has been "alternative" anything, it has always been a whopping fact whether all nations chose to accept it - at whatever stages this may have been - or not. The only way this can be contested is if you reassign the meanings of the words respectively i.e., round for flat, and flat for round - e.g., in the same fashion that you switch fact for "alternative explanation/specluation" and come to a "consensus" that this is acceptable.

2. If the very calendar of "concensus" is off by at least 4,000 years, science is by far a superior methodology in ascertaining neutral information that does not warp our sense of perception and bias it towards a dubious bunch that really should stand trial and be charged, and convicted, for a massive information heist.

Therefore, let us not advocate retarded methodolgy that was utilized in "15th Century" Europe, by a dubious and jaded minority. Advocating to write texts in the fashion of a European 15th century encyclopedia serves no purpose, bar perpetuating the heist. A full 360 degree, global, (circa)63rd century presentation of information based on scientific facts is a neutral and progressive way to educate humanity.

While you or I may not agree with the consensus opinion, as editors we are nonetheless required to dispassionately state and explain the consensus view in Wikipedia articles. If we believe that a non-consensus view has merit, that can be mentioned in an alternative section and explained on the Talk pages.
Now, of course, we have the right to set up our own websites and even encyclopedias, but when editing Wikipedia, we must play by their rules. Thanks for this discussion, Madman 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rules

Thanks for a very useful reminder.

PLEASE READ WIKIPEDIAS POLICY IN FULL. I shall do you a favour and get you started, but you are free to verify the rest in full detail, yourself.

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

WIKEPEDIA.

I strongly suggest someone starts adhering to them...

The world WILL continue to reference a reliable and verifiable presentation of information about the origins of the Olmecs.

In the meantime, I thank-you. The pleasure is all mine.

[edit] blocked

You've been blocked for violating the three-revert rule. See you tomorrow. — Mar. 14, '06 [00:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Regarding Olmec:

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)