User talk:Last1in

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please feel free to post any comments about my edits here. I love to learn, and becoming a Wikipedian will require input from people like you. Negative comments are always welcome for that very reason; I cannot become better if YOU don't tell me what I'm doing wrong (or right). Kevin Wells 16:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. Archived Comments

Hometown Project[edit]

I'm tired of finding mention of a town or city, either in Wiki or the outside world, and finding the Wikipedia article has nothing but Lat/Long coordinates and some census data. Projects like the U.S. cities Wikiproject give a shell, but an encyclopaedia should be more that a list of sterile facts; it should give at least a little of the flavour of a place.

Every one of us is from SOMEWHERE. You know something about your hometown -- its history, its lore and its identity -- and you know that's more than a map location and a population breakdown. I'd like to challenge every Wikipedian to look up the place or places that you know and, if there is nothing substantive there, add something encyclopaedic and interesting.

I went to school in a town so stultifyingly boring that the paint watched US dry. But even that speck of a hamlet has a history. When you go there, whether in Wiki or the "real" world, you know it's more than numbers. - Kevin Wells/Last1in

Jesus Stuff[edit]

Please post Jesus-related comments and criticisms here.

We could use some help. Wikipedia:Article_Improvement_Drive#Restorationism (1 vote, stays until August 15). should bring more people in. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Santhara: perspectives[edit]

Perhaps, and unfortunately so, you wrote on the Jainism page, " + Some Jains also revere the practice of Santhara, where a person who has completed all duties in this life ceases to eat or drink unto death. This has recently led to controversy in India, where the practice is illegal."

Well, and may I ask,what knowledge do you have about the legal system of India, its laws, ...and the religious traditions of Jains to say that "the practice is illegal". Pasted below is my comment on the discussion page. You may also see the new edit of the page, which tries to give a relatively neutral picture. Please note that my comment is based entirely on Supreme Court of India's judgments on 1, Euthanasia, 2. Indian Penal Code Section 307 which deals with "attempt to suicide". I can email you the text of the judgments, if you want to convince yourself regarding the authenticity of the comments.

Perspectives on Santhara

Legalese 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)It will be appreciated if users discuss here first, their perceptions regarding the practice of Santhara and its legality, before writing anything they feel like in the main page. I found a user wrote "the practice of Santhara is illegal". On what basis did he or she arrive to this conclusion is questioned, since the matter is already pending before the High Court of Rajasthan, and it is not too wise to give a conclusive statement beforehand. Moreover, such blanket statements, which are not reasoned, hurt the religious sentiments of Jains, and the users must keep this in mind. While Freedom of Speech is a liberty, the Freedom of Conscience is an equally available right, and hence, keep in mind that the use of one does not curtail the scope of the other. in Solidarity, Rishabh

My response posted to Rishabh's talk page: Rishabh,

Thank for your excellent edit to the Santhara paragraph in Jainism. The first paragraph of what you wrote is superb.

I have several requests, however. First, please do not impugn the abilities or motives of other editors. I strongly suggest that, when you calm down a bit, you review WP:FAITH and WP:CIV. WP:KC also has info that might help you. More on this subject below.

I did not say that the practice of Santhara is illegal. Dozens upon dozens of sources said so and I placed that information in an appropriate place within an appropriate article. I am neither a scholar on India's legal system nor Santhara and would be perfectly willing to acknowledge a mistake, but the prohibition on suicide in §309 (which I am amused to note you claim is in §307) is not the only thing at issue.

Dozens of protestors across India are charged with a criminal offence for taking a fast to the point where death is likely. In many cases, especially protests that embarrass local officials, the definition of "likely" is extremely subjective. Rajasthan is something of an exception due to the respect most local officials have for Jains. That does not make the difference of treatment fair, equitable or appropriate in the eyes of many Indians, especially those prevented from attempting to enter Rūpadhātu by an official who finds their fast inconvenient.

On to more substantive and contentious issues, the tone and substance of your talk page posts:

(1) You accused me, amongst a host of other things, of religious intolerance and "…hurt[ing] the religious sentiments of Jains…". Perhaps you may want to contemplate the effect of your own assertions that it is not comprehensible that anyone could see Santhara is illegal or that no question [can exist] regarding its illegality on Hindus prevented from a similar exit from this world, or on Fundamentalist Christians who view any self-release from "this mortal vale of tears" as an abomination and a direct insult to their god, or on non-secular Indians suffering from any number of diseases who are actively prevented from surcease of suffering by the Penal Code.

(2) Your additions (the two paragraphs you created after your excellent edit of my inadequate Santhara paragraph) are in my opinion so abysmally POV that your talk page statement about adding a "neutral picture" is astonishing. To me, they seem about as neutral a defence solicitor's brief. I would propose that they violate WP:POV, WP:NOR, WP:FAITH and WP:CIV.

(3) Your snide little aside about "writing anything [I] feel like in the main page" is both insulting and condescending, and quite wrong. I spent several hours researching and distilling info prior to posting my Santhara edit; I would suggest that you do the same in future. I have yet to come across a single source supporting your concept of legality that was not authored from a Jain POV. Please provide your sources. I would also like to suggest you visit WP:KC. It has some excellent ideas you might be able to use.

(4) It is not a normal practise in Wikipedia to subject every edit for "prior approval" to some cabal on the talk page, especially if the new information is widely represented in respectable sources. My edit certainly falls into that category, whereas yours relies on a very creative interpretation of the Penal Code and a rather inflexible Jain POV.

(5) Claiming that my post was not reasoned is equally insulting and offensive, and a clear violation of WP:CIV and WP:FAITH. I would thank you not to repeat them. Againa, I'd like to point you toward WP:KC

(6) Editors, like BOTH of us, need to keep ALL users in mind, not just the subjects of articles. Remember that the primary audience for an article on a religion is those outside that faith; to present info that denigrates all other ideas is counterproductive, offensive and wrong. To claim that Christians perpetrated the Crusades and slaughtered Muslims is upsetting to Christians, but nevertheless accurate. If we only include comfortable information, we are not encyclopaedists, but propagandists.

I respect your contributions to articles on a host of Jain-related issues, and hope you will continue to help us build a superb and worldwide resource in Wikipedia. I understand your core objection to the substance of my post and like the edit you made to correct it. I do not, however, appreciate a public flogging over an edit that essentially reflected the general consensus view of hundreds of millions of people (and as many non-Jain sources as I could find) on the legal status of Santhara. Kevin/Last1in 04:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chain page[edit]

Hi, thought you might be interested, I have been working on the Chain page, and have established (in stub form) the basic 'chain' page that your note on the original 'Chain' page (which is now Chain (disambiguation)) said was needed. It's true that the disambig page isn't really a disambig page, I don't know if there's a better Wiki term for it --Mortice 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bloody Question[edit]

Thanks for the query. I don't have a reference for it, but there was a certain form of question that was put to recusants under interrogation. Just to confirm that it was a genuine phenomenon, on a quick google ("the bloody question" Burghley) I found this - It's years since I read about it, but my recollection is that the question (or interrogatory) was quite a bit more involved than the form contained in that link, and was expertly designed to frustrate equivocating answers from informed catholics. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to Cecil - although he was a wise and crafty fox.--Shtove 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've just read your userpage - good attitude to WP.

Plus 'always' is spelt incorrectly at the top of this page - won't interfere.--Shtove 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bleeding ledes[edit]

Kevin, that was one of the least necessary, nicest apologies I've ever read – and of course I mean "nice" in its original, non-mealy-mouthed sense. You're an honest, intelligent and critical editor, and you put the reader first. That's invaluable. Haploidavey (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burma viewpoint[edit]

I simply reverted what has been done multiplt times on both sides. I did not leave a personal comment with badly out of context quotes about your wiki habits as you did to me. You should try the global warming talk page if you want to really see wiki protocol in action with soapbox reverts. I left half of your latest response though tempted to remove it all since I don't see how it helps the original poster at all. You could simply explain both sides or do as regentspark did and link to past discussions. That would have been helpful. It has sometimes been contentious, these discussions, and your post on the talk page was far from help. That was the only reason for the delete. Plenty of posts have been made that I disagreed with and I didn't revert them because they furthered their point or helped someone really understand. I saw no value in your post. Perhaps it could be rephrased so as to really help Metallurgist to a better understanding? Otherwise what would happen would be someone else would come along and be pissed at your post and one up it, and then another would top that... etc... That's what I tried to avoid. I hate removing posts and do it very rarely. Sorry, but that's how I saw it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please. Don't bother. I shan't return to your fiefdom and I've removed it from my watchlist, so all is safe. My original post chose humour over an honest answer in the hope that it might bring people to their senses. My honest answer to Metallurgist, the one most likely to "really help him understand," would have read like this:
I spent three DAYS wading through the swamp of vitriol and hyperbole that make up the archive for this mess before I posted. The name went (relatively) uncontested for six YEARS before a small group of activists demanded that it change immediately to the colonial name of Burma (a name with a history a millennium shorter than Mrnamar). Since its move in 2007, I cannot find an archive where astonished editors don't come to the talk page and ask, "Why on earth this is under the old name?" You didn't see that prior to the change. There were not people appearing on the Talk Page every few weeks going, "Seriously? Myanmar?" Does it tell you NOTHING that there was no real contention prior to the move, but the discussion has never abated since?
As mentioned, I waited a long time to post. You reverted my Talk Page post not because of WP:SOAP but because I didn't agree with you. I come to this conclusion not because I am somehow psychic or omniscient, nor in violation of WP:AGF. I come to it after careful reading of nine archives which presented me with the following gems, NONE OF WHICH would be extant if WP:SOAP had any meaning for you whatsoever. I chose the quotes from the most-recent discussion for my post because they were frankly hysterical. Out of context? No. Quotes like these are found in every single debate on the subject since the article was renamed to Burma.
• A future that is grim awaits these people. All they want is your support. Will you give it?
• blindly or dishonestly ignore
• China has nothing to do with this. It has a completely different geopolitical situation, so please stop trying to bring it up…. {response} now, China's a straw man. Former Soviet Union's a straw man. Thailand, Iran, Vietnam, Cote d'Ivoire, anything that is an example is a straw man.
• Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast
• English native countries don't get exclusively rights on the English language as hard as that may be for you to accept
• funny and childish discussions
• hamfisted attempt to impune an individuals' contribution by reference to something thoroughly immaterial and is no more than grasping at straws
• Have you no respect for burmese people
• I dont think much weight should be given to countries [the list included New Zealand] whose language is not English as its [sic] main language.
• if 90% of the major English speaking countries call you Jerk StormRider
• if every sngle Burmese rose as one and acclaimed the name of their country to be Myanmar we should still use Burma
• if its good enough for the BBC it should be for wikicensorpedia
• if some nuts took over Your country and named it wankers it wouldnt surprise me that the UN would verify it. It does make me sad that you would cower
• if thugs took over the state of Kansas and renamed it thugville
• illegal regime who has picked a fake name
• I've been here for 6 months, and am familiar with the policies I am addressing. You've been here 2 days, and aren't. I am sorry that I couldn't be of more assistance to you, but I tried.
• mindlessly and simplemindedly following the dictates of boorish generals
• One doesnt speak Myanma, one speaks Burmese.
• Our job is to write English, not pander to your pedantry
• pander to people's ignorance
• playing the race card
• Qaddafi {I will admit that I saw no direct references to Hitler, congrats}
• Shakes head wearily
• Supporting 'Myanmar' is to support an illegal military junta
• that would destroy English Wikipedia
• The gang of criminals currently running it has chosen it.
• The so called "government" is little more than a bunch of bullies
• the whim of the country's rapacious oligarchy.
• We can't avoid coming down on one side in this case, so may as well stay where we are. {only said AFTER it was the title they want}
• What do you think OR means?
• What non-English countries call Burma is irrelevant.
• why should those who don't have lives have the right to dictate usage and/or waste the time of those who do have lives and don't have time to rediscuss things every few months and check WP every few days so they don't miss a rehashed discussion
• willful ignorance never stops people from voting
The arguments for Burma are flawed on so many levels. For your next foray into the topic, assuming you allow anyone to post who does not share your opinion in future, you might use the US passion for sport to your advantage. Like those who cling to the tattered glory of Empire, Americans cling to the faded glory of sports teams.
• The Sports Authority Field in Denver is ALWAYS "Mile High Stadium" or "New Mile High Stadium" in common speech. Many local residents would give you a blank stare for a moment before realizing what stadium you meant.
• If you ask a local New Orleans resident about the Mercedes-Benz stadium, I doubt you could find one in fifty who would know you meant "The Superdome."
• CenturyLink Field is either Seahawks Stadium or Qwest Field to just about everyone.
• Quicken Loans Arena is consistently called The Q, to the point what most people don't know what the 'q' stands for.
Official names do not always stick. However, colonial names almost never do. I am hard-pressed to think of a single colonial name for an independent nation that persisted in the common vernacular (without strict didactic editorial rules in government-owned press• hint: yes, I'm talking about the BBC) for more than a handful of years. South Africa is likely the only example, and that's because the poor place is so fractured that any three parties will disagree on a time for tea. Germany and Italy and Holland were not British colonies. The names evolved in English organically. Rhodesia, British Honduras, and Burma did not. Ignoring a world filled with English-language press and web posts in favour of EXCLUSIVELY "native English" (a code phrase for US+UK+AUS, even to the point of excluding the entire rest of the Commonwealth) is appalling, offensive and HYSTERICALLY FUNNY. One last point before I end my polemic: This is advice that I frequently offer to red-faced religious fanatics shouting at detractors, but I think it applies here as well, "If you don't want people to turn you into a joke, stop feeding them straight lines."
By the way, in case you're wondering, I wrote this more for myself. I have no doubt that you will reject it out of hand. It does, occasionally, make me feel good to review a weekend's research to see if I have led myself astray, then put 'keyboard to paper' to sort out the possible counter-arguments. There aren't any counter-arguments here other than intellectually and historically bankrupt ones. Am I convincing anyone? Certainly not. Am I trying? Not really because the folks who would benefit most from reading this are the ones least likely to encounter it and the ones who under no circumstances would accept the conclusions.
I actually do mean it when I wish you all the best luck. And I mean it when I say you will definitely need all the luck you can get. The article is in abysmal shape. It is laced with loaded catch-phrases and POV adjectives, something that I am actually quite good at helping with. It has so many WP:UNDUE problems that it's hard to tell undue weight from outright POV pushing. I honestly do not understand how it got a B-Class rating. However, YOU obviously have a vested, emotional interest in the article as it stands. I would suggest that you are unlikely to improve the article when you only listen to those singing the same notes as you. This is a blatantly monotone article awash in a sea of those that have embraced melody. {Sing} on, Macduff, and damned be him who first cries 'Hold! enough!' Kevin/Last1in (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In case anyone cares about the original posts:

While I'm new to this discussion, I can't help but be amused by the tortuous arguments in favour of an archaic (if still fairly common) term for a modern nation. I read the archives in their entirety simply for the humour. I don't think much weight should be given to countries [the list included New Zealand] whose language is not English as it's [sic] main language. Next! The gang of criminals currently running it has chosen [Myanmar]. EXACTLY. I address my post to TAC (The American Colonies); that "USA" nonsense is just the ravings of a gang of criminals (every Founding Father was a foresworn traitor to king and country). One doesn't speak Myanma, one speaks Burmese. One doesn't speak Hollandish either, though one might be persuaded by Hollandaise. And my personal favourite, distilled from dozens of oppose votes: Just look at the BBC, BBC!, BBC World Service!!, BBC!!! Ahem, correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the BBC a SOC owned by the colonial power in question? Might they be just a wee bit biased as a source?

− −

I am a rabid Anglophile and I unapologetically write in English instead of American -- colour is supposed to have a 'u' in it, people -- but I have to smile at desperate attempts to hang onto the shreds of Empire, if (literally) in name only. I look forward to reading the articles on British Honduras, Madras, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Bombay, South-West Africa, Calcutta and, especially, Mandatory Palestine. Remembering that a search of all respected literature from the Venerable Bede through 1950 will clearly show that either Palestine or Transjordan is the overwhelming choice of scholars, please let me know when you revert Israel's article to a more-traditional English title -- that should be quite amusing to watch. Closer to the point, I notice that some miscreant has redirected Akyab to some neologism called 'Sittwe', and Rangoon's title is horribly misspelled as 'Yangon'. Blimey, don't these people watch movies? Did Miss Arquette star in something called Beyond Yangon? I think not.

− −

If you're already pasting WP:NASTY and WP:NICE and WP:CIR and WP:AGF and WP:AAGFAAGF into your edit window of choice, pause a moment. How can you seriously expect anyone NOT to lampoon this decision? The RM discussion is its very own parody. I came to this page because six zillion headlines talked about the historic elections in Myanmar. Whilst the BBC is my primary news source, I understand that they are constrained by their government owners just as US media are constrained by their corporate ones. I don't expect the BBC to say anything other than Burma any more than I'd expect them to admit that Television License Fee is a thin fig leaf to avoid the word TAX. I just never expected to see it a Wikipedia article's title. And to use as a reason that, for one thing they all know how to pronounce it, is fairly insulting to Wikipedians. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can understand why you have trouble reaching consensus on the name of the article. My talk page post calling into question the reasons used to retain the title was immediately reverted by one of the people who seems to me - a literally uninterested observer - to be the most stridently POV on the recent RM request. Actually, it's not even a talk page post; it's a post on a sub-page devoted solely to the discussion of the article's name. AND it was in a section headed with a question on how such a very odd 'consensus' was reached. Just... wow. Even in the midst of the Jesus Wars I had never had a talk page post removed by someone who didn't like my viewpoint. I have no horse in this race. Luke 10:11, live long and prosper, and (most appropriately) good night and good luck. [Signature]
PS: To the editor who reverted the post, because I am not good at leasing well enough alone: You might want to tread lightly on WP:SOAP. With posts like, "if some nuts took over Your country and named it wankers it wouldn't surprise me that the UN would verify it. It does make me sad that you would cower..." and the quite snappish, "...if 90% of the major English speaking countries call you Jerk StormRider..." and, "...if thugs took over the state of Kansas and renamed it thugville..." (I'm actually from Kansas, btw) and, "... willful ignorance never stops people from voting..." you might want to check the thickness of the very thin ice upon which you skate before reverting things. My honest and heartfelt best wishes to you, and to your fellow editors on this article. It is in need of help that, with this approach, is unlikely to be forthcoming. [Signature]

/* Side Effects */[edit]

I edited the information to meet WP:RSMED standards. Don't take it down again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakebarrington (talkcontribs) 19:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for the message, it seems like a very straightforward case in my opinion if we apply the policies but like you mentioned it seems that people have their reasons for keeping it at Burma. Like I said in the discussion, I actually have no link whatsoever to the country and had no idea that it had two names and there was political motives for each name. In fact, I know very little about the country, except for what I learnt from that renaming discussion. But I do know that the article name should be Myanmar if people just use a bit of common sense. TonyStarks (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scimitar oryx[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Last1in. You have new messages at Talk:Scimitar oryx.
Message added --Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on Coral Thiell question[edit]

On Talk:People of Praise. One of the other editors suggested I create an WP:RFC to get outside opinions beyond those looking at the page, so I plan to work on that over the next several days. Novellasyes (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I finally got the RfC constructed on the "People of Praise" article relative to the Coral Thiell situation. Novellasyes (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of screwed up the RFC process (as you might see on that page) but it's been fixed now and hopefully others outside of our little group with our current opinions will weigh in. Happy editing! Novellasyes (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. nytimes/Michelle Goldberg [1] - "Trump’s Shredding of Civil Liberties Won’t Stop With Antifa"
  2. foxnews/Mark Levin: "If there was ever any doubt, dimwitted Biden says it is his intention to immediately sellout America by joining the Paris Peace Accords, impose $15 an hour minimum wage, impose unionism throughout the country on workers who don’t want it, wipeout student debt, rejoin the Iran deal, pay millions to Palestinian terrorists, open the floodgate to illegal immigration, massive increase in taxes, killer regulations, reimpose critical race theory training throughout the federal government, ignore BLM and Antifa violence, force taxpayers to pay for infanticide — and that's just for starters. Biden is prepared to lockdown the country and eviscerate civil liberties."[2]
And, my conception of wiki as an aid to thinking (along with the foregoing references to Antifa) offers me an excuse to engage in reductio-ad-fascium:
  1. guardian[3] - "[Arendt] thought that nazism performed an assault against thinking "
  2. timesliterarysupplement[4] -

    ". . Thinking is the source not of truth but of meaning. It flirts with doubt, perplexity and wonder, and because of this it is the permanent enemy not just of ideological dogmatism but of all forms of intellectual complacency and elitism. . .

    She [Arendt] advocated a kind of revolutionary liberalism, founded on a 'romantic sympathy' for the council system, a territorially organized non-party model of direct democracy, in which citizen assemblies elected their own delegates to represent them at each successive level of (local, regional, state, national) government. She wanted to reclaim the eighteenth-century idea of 'happiness' as a public good realized through political participation, including acts of civil disobedience. . .

    Arendt’s initial focus on human activity was in part a reaction against the prejudices of intellectualism, which she believed had haunted Western philosophy since its inception, and which seemed to have permitted countless educated Germans to accept, if not support, the creeping horrors of Nazism. In The Origins of Totalitarianism Arendt argued that Nazism and Stalinism constituted a radical break with the political history of the Occident. But she also believed that the very tradition of Western thought was ill-equipped to recognize and resist the currents of racism and fascism that began to surface in the last decade of the nineteenth century. Its fateful error had been to elevate thinking over doing, and thus to treat the often messy and uncertain world of politics as a disposable adjunct to the flawless realm of ideas – to a theoretical doctrine or ideology. . .

    The conception of political action as the highest expression of humanness has always stood in tension with the idea that politics, like labour, is a necessary and regrettable means. For the philosophers it was the unavoidable means, made necessary by humans' biological dependence on one another, of organizing social life so as to permit the higher end of solitary thinking. For modern citizens, political participation is commonly regarded as an opportunity to assert one’s self-interest, which in most cases means protecting or increasing one's level of private consumption. (Self-interest, Arendt frequently argued, is a misnomer, since inter est refers to the common world that lies between individuals, not inside them.) . .

    In the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Hitler, this subordination of human beings to natural, or quasi-natural, processes, was taken to its absolute extreme. Human worldliness requires the construction of a shared world of stable objects, tools, laws and institutions, which intercede between people and the relentless processes of nature and thereby create the space for political association and the steady negotiation and pursuit of common goals. Characteristic of totalitarianism, however, is the assimilation of process and movement into the very fabric of social and political life. Arendt explicitly repudiated a causal explanation of totalitarianism, noting how 'the road to totalitarian domination leads through many intermediate stages for which we can find numerous analogies and precedents'[. .

    . I]n her later study of Eichmann, Arendt revised her assessment of the role of ideology. 'Eichmann was much less influenced by ideology than I assumed in the book on totalitarianism', she wrote in a letter to Mary McCarthy [5]. 'The impact of ideology upon the individual may have been overrated by me.' Her famous account of evil's 'banality' was an attempt to make sense of what she described as Eichmann’s 'extraordinary shallowness', which 'was not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think'. When she finally turned, in the 1970s, to the second part of the human condition – the life of the mind – she returned again to Socrates, and to the way Socrates cultivated not just a dialogue with his fellow citizens, but an inner conversation with himself. In thinking, Arendt argued, one develops 'the disposition to live together explicitly with oneself', and this functions as a brake on the temptation to do wrong: 'It is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong, because you can remain the friend of the sufferer; who would want to live together with a murderer?' Arendt recognized that thinking is not a political activity, but that thinking should at least prevent us from participating in the violation of human fellowship. As the public exchange of opinions recedes before the social-media universe of self-confirming facts, thinking may offer a sanctuary for the sceptical mind and a rehearsal of the dialogic relation that is constitutive of the political community."

    Finn Bowring - Author of Hannah Arendt: A Critical Introduction

  3. wikipedia's "Origins of Totalitarianism#Structure and content" - "Arendt states that, owing to its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in its apparatus of coercion, 'totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating and terrorizing human beings from within' [9] She further contends that Jewry was not the operative factor in the Holocaust, but merely a convenient proxy. That totalitarianism in Germany was, in the end, about terror and consistency, not eradicating Jews only.[10][8] A key concept arising from this book, was the application of Kant's phrase 'Radical Evil',[11] which she applied to the men who created and carried out such tyranny and their depiction of their victims as 'Superfluous People'.[12][13]"
  4. "In The Origins of Totalitarianism she [Arendt] still held on to a Kantian notion of radical evil. ... Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil."---In the introduction to Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
  5. wikipedia's "Eichmann in Jerusalem#Eichmann - "Eichmann stated himself in court that he had always tried to abide by Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (as discussed directly on pp. 135–137). She argues that Eichmann had essentially taken the wrong lesson from Kant: Eichmann had not recognized the 'golden rule' and principle of reciprocity implicit in the categorical imperative, but had understood only the concept of one man's actions coinciding with general law. Eichmann attempted to follow the spirit of the laws he carried out, as if the legislator himself would approve. In Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative, the legislator is the moral self, and all people are legislators; in Eichmann's formulation, the legislator was Hitler. Eichmann claimed this changed when he was charged with carrying out the Final Solution, at which point Arendt claims "he had ceased to live according to Kantian principles, that he had known it, and that he had consoled himself with the thoughts that he no longer 'was master of his own deeds,' that he was unable 'to change anything'" (p. 136)."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I've come to the conclusion that, as far as the philosophical underpinnings of whatever kind of fascism are concerned, it's the concept that "the ends justify the means" which they all have in common. The bhagwan's personal secretary (who of course also functioned as "Rajneeshpuram's" de facto "political boss") provides me what I think a good example of this: She truly believed the value of the life of the bhagwan's personal doctor was minuscule in proportion to that of the bhagwan. For humanity to develop the New Man that was to arise from out of the-holy-city-in-Oregon-(over-which-she-was-"boss"), it was up to her, or someone, to prevent dire threats to the bhagwan's safety from occurring (such as she viewed this doctor to be, of course: the "final solution," as far as the problem with regard to this man was concerned. Sure, such would be an n unfortunate, ugly business. But, alas, the very fate of the future of humankind's spiritual development was what was being held in the balance... and she herself, perhaps had means to help those ends come about. She "reasoned": Have an underling make the attempt to eliminate this said doctor from the face of the earth!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. nybooks/Arendt[6] - "Führerworte haben Gesetzes Kraft, 'the Führer’s words have the force of law'" ... "The methods used in the pursuit of historical truth are not the methods of the prosecutor, and the men who stand guard over facts are not the officers of interest groups—no matter how legitimate their claims—but the reporters, the historians, and finally the poets."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. guardian/Zoe Williams [7] - ". . Arendt brings some liberating insight, described in precis by Professor Griselda Pollock, an expert in Arendt. 'She talks of the creation of pan movements, these widespread ideas that overarch national, political and ethnic elements – the two big pan movements she talks about are bolshevism and nazism. There is a single explanation for everything, and before the single explanation, everything else falls away. She gives a portrait of how you produce these isolated people, who then become susceptible to pan ideologies, which give them a place in something. But the place they have is ultimately sacrificial; they don’t count for anything; all that counts is the big idea.' The left, in other words, isn't necessarily unequal to the task of creating a pan-ideology; but anyone who believed in pluralism or complexity would have no currency on this terrain. . ."
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POP and cults[edit]

Thanks for helping so much to straighten out that situation. I got really interested in all of this. I am far from being an expert on cults. It seems to me that perhaps what is going on here is that some groups like POP encourage/facilitate/require much more being-up-in-each-other's-business than is the norm in contemporary society. There is plenty of reason to think that much-more-bonding than is the norm is healthy. Blue Zones says so and makes the case. But to Americans raised in our bowling-alone society (including me), it seems strange. It's hard to imagine what that would really be like. It would probably be hard as an adult to come from a bowling-alone environment and move comfortably into a lots-of-togetherness-and-in-your-grill lifestyle. The people in POP who seem to be having lots of adult satisfaction and success seem to be from the families who have been in it for a long time. It doesn't seem to be growing that fast (or really much at all) and I think that would be because it would be hard to come into the very elaborate structure they seem to have, but it's pretty easy to grow up in it and you get all the rewards of intense warm bonding as a constant factor in your life. Meanwhile, there are attachment disorders, which are pretty prevalent and exist on a continuum. My assumption is that someone with a more extreme attachment disorder would be more attracted as an adult/possible newcomer to the warmth/attachment that radiate from close-bonding groups like the POP. But then they would also struggle with it. I can see how this would lead to bad outcomes. I also think that anytime you have a group with more-intense-bonding than is the norm, the odds of spiritual abuse-type situations would go way up. That would be a danger that would co-exist with the benefits of the closer-bonding, and it would be hard to strike the right balance (lots of bonding; nothing creepy or abusive). My completely speculative thoughts for the very little they are worth. Novellasyes (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relatively high community statuses might help, sometimes, user:Novellasyes, perhaps, too(?) (ACB's dad who led the group in her town in Louisiana; as a student she resided within the home of the couple-who-co-founded [along with another couple] PoP.)

A novelist and memoirist, who'd done some interviews with podcasters I've listened to, is -- ah or was -- orthodox jewish. Unable to recall her name, I type 'orthodox,' 'judaism,' 'memoir' in google. Among the first 'hits': Haaretz: "JTA - In recent years, a spate of memoirs have been written by those who have left haredi Orthodox Judaism. ..." My eye alights on the novelist, among books offered for sale above the list of hits. Tova Mirvis! Surfing to her wiki blp, I find scant info there about her. But the hyper-brief stub does include: "Mirvis was the subject of a 2005 essay by Wendy Shalit entitled 'The Observant Reader'[8] in The New York Times Book Review which accused Mirvis, an orthodox Jew, of writing ostensibly '"insider" fiction (that) actually reveals the authors' estrangement from the traditional Orthodox community.' Mirvis defended herself in an essay in the Jewish Daily The Forward.[9]"

I chuckle. Somebody had <gasp!> written fiction with a critical stance toward a tightly-knit community? How dare she misleadingly style herself an "insider." (With this complaint @ the highbrow!) No doubt, there's well-educated adherents of PoP at Notre Dame who feel similarly with concern insider critics of their religious community.

OK! Looking for something pithy, I specify "Mirvis," "controlling"; "Adrian J. Reimers" "controlling," in a pair of searches. First quotes that pop up, respectively, (highlighted in green):

  1. "... Studying in Israel puts some distance between her and her controlling mother and deflects the close and persistent scrutiny of their insular community. ..." --- "Mediating Judaism: Mind, Body, Spirit, and Contemporary North American Jewish Fiction" - AJS Review - Volume 30 Issue 2 - Sara R. Horowitz
  2. "... On the face of it, this seems fairly harmless. No attempt is made to psychoanalyze the one receiving prayer. Neither are accusations of wrongdoing made nor confessions required. The victim is seen as being delivered from malevolent evil beings which are crippling his life in Christ. All he need do is pray and renounce this evil. In fact, the entire procedure is fraught with psychological traps. One of the most serious is the opportunity for manipulation of conscience. Frequently when a member expresses reservations about some aspect of community life or criticizes community leaders, those who pray with her will discern a 'critical spirit.' If the head has been encouraging a particular course of action (e.g., that a woman accept a particular marriage proposal) which the member has resisted, then the prayer team will likely discern a 'spirit of rebellion.' Once the 'demon' has been cast out by the team and renounced by the victim, then the matter is not put to rest. Rather, in the future when the member begins to criticize or rebel, her head will remind her that the critical or rebellious spirits have been cast out; she must continue to renounce them and claim her deliverance. To revert to the demon-inspired behavior is to risk falling back into the devilish trap that Christ had delivered her from. Deliverance from evil spirits can thus easily become a means for controlling behavior and manipulation of consciences. ..." (Final line of piece: "Whether one belongs to the Sword of the Spirit or the People of Praise or to the Moonies or The Way International, whether one joins a Bible-based discipleship church or an ultra-traditionalist Tridentine schismatic group or the Mormons, that person lives in a spiritual world in which evil spirits allegedly infiltrate the Church, other religious groups, the counseling professions, and even the person's own soul. It is a world in which safety from Satan can only be found in submission to enlightened leaders who claim a special power from God to discern the true workings of the devil. It is a world in which a person loses psychological control of his or her own life.") --- "More Than the Devil's Due" - Cultic Studies Journal, 1994, Volume 11, Number 1, pages 77-87 - Adrian J. Reimers, Ph.D.
    --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I appreciate your chipping in on the cannabis discussion....but it's a challenging situation :-), :-(. . Basically, the consensus seems to be that marijuana drug effects need to be attributed to medical-grade articles (if you care, see Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#Is_this_biomedical_information?_Clarification_requested. So I'm probably going to have to work with that. Finney1234 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's gonna be a short article, since research is literally ILLEGAL in most countries including the UK and US. Last1in (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]


You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––FormalDude (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gender and sexuality contentious topic notice[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]