User talk:BruceGrubb/archive 1

Your edits to Christ myth theory

This should go without saying, but since you've been recently blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Christ myth theory, you should try to avoid edit warring there. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok but where was the talk about the page not having SYN issues that justified the removal of the tag in the first place?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to point out that, while editing an article, you are welcome to click the "Show Preview" button as many times as you wish, view and edit your changes, and then when you believe your edit is finished, click the "Save Page" button only once. Hope this helps! prhartcom (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

CMT

Thank you for your invitation. I wish I could get involved, but I'm afraid I can't. Whatever happens don't edit war or be uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply anything about your past behavior - just giving generic advise. If one user is calling another a liar then the right noticeboard for that is WP:WQA. Just tell the folks there what you told me. For content disputes in general the WP:MEDCAB might be able to help.   Will Beback  talk  08:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My attempt to correct your misunderstanding of sources relavant to the Christ myth theory page (#1)

Hi Bruce. NuclearWarfare says that to really get something done, rather than post to the ANI, I should initiate a RfC/U. The instructions there say that two attempts must be made to correct the issue on the malefactor's talk page. So here I am. Consider this attempt number one.

You continually bring up a variety of sources you claim undermine the definition in use on the Christ myth theory page. Recently you've mentioned these: (1) Bromiley's ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (2) Dodd's History and the Gospel, (3) Dawkins' The God Delusion, some references to (4) Price, (5) Doherty, (6) and Michael Turton, and (7) The Jesus Legend by Eddy and Boyd. As you've been informed over and over again, all of your proffered sources either don't say what you want them to say or are not admissible as reliable sources.

1. Bromiley (or an anonymous contributor to his volume) doesn't say what you wish he said. Bromiley states on page 1034 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that the Christ myth theory has only been argued for "the last two hundred years or so" and that the advocates of the thesis employ an argument similar to that used by the 2nd century Lucian. Also, Bromiley deals with Russell's Jesus agnosticism only after wrapping up his overview of the Christ myth theory proper.
2. Dodd never actually defines the Christ myth theory so there's simply no way to set his non-definition against the actual definition currently used in the article. Dodd's book simply includes little superscripts at the top of each page to help roughly orient the reader, such as "occurence and meaning" and "historical and supra-historical"--they aren't section headings or anything, the text just flows from one page to the next with no breaks. At the top of page 17 the superscript reads "The Christ myth theory" and on that page Dood speaks of the theory that some people just made Jesus up as the symbolic representation of a mythic god. He then goes on to say, "Or alternatively", and then sketches out a different view that Jesus may have been some totally obscure person dressed up in a ready-made myth. Does Dodd think that this "Or alternatively" information is part of the Christ myth proper or does he think that he's moved on to a totally different option? To what material does the superscription apply? We don't know; as I said, he never actually defines the phrase.
3. Dawkins never even uses the phrase "Christ myth theory" in his book at all!
4. Price writes of Wells on the back cover of The Jesus Myth, "Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous..." If Price contradicts himself later on, that doesn't undermine the article's definition, it only further undermine's Price's (the non-professor extremist self-publishing here) consistency and reliability, thus making his stuff not a reliable source on living 3rd parties according to WP:IRS on three different counts.
5. Doherty is an online self-publishing amatuer who's statements are manifestly inadmissable as reliable sources.
6. Turton is likewise an online self-publishing amatuer who's statements are manifestly inadmissable as reliable sources. You yourself once conceded this very thing, saying Turton's webpage was "somewhat useless" [1].
7. The book by Boyd and Eddy would be worth considering, but they clearly support the definition of the "Christ myth theory" currently used in the article:

   "As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend."

   Paul R. Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p. 165

You've been told all this before; this is your first "official" warning and attempted correction. If you continue with your tendentious objections to the definition based on these sources you will be corrected one more time on this talk page. After that a RfC/U will be filed. Stop this foolishness. Eugene (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this will help, but I'll chime in and say that Eugene is correct on all of his points. These are not the only examples that can be brought up of you tendentiously misinterpreting sources—I'm thinking in particular of your repeated attempts to get the Roland Fischer article included. On "Bromiley" I illustrated a long time ago that your reading was incorrect (see also [2]), but you just keep on repeating yourself as if I've said nothing: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. That set of links isn't exhaustive, since it leaves out your posts to various noticeboards, none of which have resulted in any consensus for your interpretation. It's worth noting, too, that many of your posts are practically identical; it's like you've got a text file on your computer that you just copy and paste to various Wikipedia pages.

Let me remind you that when you appealed to User:Hiberniantears, an administrator, for help on this article, he ended up advising you to take a break from the article: [13] [14]. That's good advice, and you might consider doing it now, because repeating yourself over and over isn't helping progress with the article; it's just holding things back and making your fellow editors irritated. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine I'll take a break from the article's talk on these matters but I will provided information that is asked of me on other matters related to the subject (such as User:NJMauthor requests for information which was getting somewhat off topic}.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Addressing your tendentious editting, again

Just two days ago, when the pressure was on and the admins were watching, you were saying that Wells has given up the CMT ("Wells may not consider himself a part of the "Christ Myth theory" [15]), but now that the "crisis" has passed you're back to saying that that isn't true and that Wells is just nitpicking J. P. Holding's defintion! The tendentious editing never ends. Stop; two different editors (Akhilleus and I) have warned you about this sort of nonsense in the last few days. I you do not desist, at this point I will be able to submit the RfC/U as NuclearWarfare recommended. Eugene (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly misreading what I am saying. I am only showing that Holding's definition of Christ myth theorist is insanely broad and that Wells own comments on Boyd are a better refutation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Continental drift

I thought this was classic:

"The fact that almost all paleontologists say that paleontological data oppose the various theories of continental drift should, perhaps, obviate further discussion of this point and would do so were it not that the adherents of these theories all agree that paleontological data do support them. It must be almost unique in scientific history for a group of students admittedly without special competence in a given field thus to reject the all but unanimous verdict of those who do have such competence." [...]

Anthony (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a good way to show that your analogies were good ones.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Jesus and Alexander

Hi Bruce

Can you tell me who originally constructed the argument that there is more evidence for Jesus than Alexander, and where? And is there a definitive modern version? Thanks Anthony (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who the first to use this was but I do know that the Historicity of Jesus does present The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders with a comparison between Jesus and Alexander claiming "The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander". Sanders seems to have forgotten that Alexander had employed a professional historian named Callisthenes of Olynthus with him who wrote Deeds of Alexander before falling out of favor for disagreeing with Alexander's policies or that there were some 50 different Gospels by the time the Church sat down to set the canon.

Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts takes an all too brief look into this world and contrary to the picture viewed by laymen shows a Christianity almost as fragmented in its theology as it is in the present day.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. This pops up a lot. I thought I'd look a little closer. Anthony (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious talk page editing, once more

I thought you had agreed to stop making posts like this: [16]. It contains the same claims about the "ambiguity" of the definition based on your hobby-horses Bromiley, Dodd, and Walsh, along with your pointless claim about Schweitzer. I think it's time to move on to the next step of dispute resolution, whatever that is. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out the literature has problems is NOT tedious editing. Also may I remind you that you (Akhilleus) stated "Since Schweitzer, Drews, Case, Goguel, Van Voorst, Bennett, and Weaver all present this as a coherent position, and largely name the same people as its proponents (see, e.g. this), I'm having real trouble seeing how you can say this is original research." on 12 February 2009 after my statement on 22:42, 23 December 2008 "Frazer did not doubt that Jesus had lived, or claim that Christians had invented the Jesus myth," and yet Bennett also notes that Schweitzer lists Frazer as a doubter of a historical Jesus a point I repeated on 6 January 2009. Another clear example of your apparent WP:COI pushing--once I proved that Schweitzer was NOT presenting a "coherent position" you dropped him like a hot potato.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's both tedious and tendentious. Your last post is again a cut and paste job. Schweitzer is indeed talking about the denial of Jesus' historicity as a coherent topic—why else would he have grouped all the writers he discusses into a single chapter: [17]? Well, actually it's two, because in a later edition of the Quest of the historical Jesus he added a second chapter on nonhistorical theories: [18]. Schweitzer may have mistakenly thought Frazer denied the historicity of Jesus, but so what? That doesn't change the fact that he treats the CMT as a coherent topic.

You need to read WP:COI. I don't see how anyone could reasonably accuse me of a conflict of interest on this article. Of course, if you disagree, you are more than welcome to make a post at WP:COIN and see what other people think. As for you, I think I'm going to start a WP:RFC/U soon, because you've been making the same talk page posts over and over again for years and you show no sign of stopping. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Since fellow administrator User:SlimVirgin is now raising the same questions you can no longer claim tedious editing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources that fail verification

Following this recent edit which you performed, a message was left on that article talk page to the effect that the sources you added are known to fail verification, as had been discussed before. You need to explain the addition of these sources as requested there. History2007 (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:BruceGrubb requested at WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, your comments at Talk:Christ myth theory, and your recent canvassing of support from individuals you apparently might think are sympathetic to you, show much more desperation on your part than anyone else has displayed to date. Given that it is your editing that is being considered for limitation, that is of course understandable, but it is in line with your other recent problematic edits. I would sincerely urge you to refrain from further attacks on others and other improper conduct. You may be a valued editor in other fields, I don't know, but I don't remember seeing you anywhere else, and it is always possible, unfortunately, that further misconduct might result in even stronger restrictions. I realize how desperate you clearly are in this matter, but at least try to maintain some level of decorum, lest the restrictions, perhaps, get expanded beyond the current proposals. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Elizium23 listed his support even though the source I used in that article was from Columbia University Press I think you have other problems. Thanks to editors like him this is going to look like a vendetta.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, you should know very well that Elizium23's opportunistic one-line comment will have zero impact and is of no relevance. We are not at ANI because of Chick Tracts. Show enough dignity to address the real issues rather than concentrate on distractions. Paul B (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

As you have certainly anticipated, per the clear consensus expressed at the community discussion referred to above (permalink), you are now restricted from making any edits on Christianity-related topics, broadly construed. This will be logged on WP:RESTRICT; the decision can be appealed to the community (via WP:AN) or to the Arbitration Committee (via the ban appeals subcommittee). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I will keep an eye on the Christ Myth theory article and note any attempts to POV it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)