User:Rursus/Kill

Templates

Rursus the Killer

Zone of Sudden Death

Deletion

Leading principle of this examination:

AWW
DMBJ
AWG
CAWA
IFDS
PBAT
DMTD

Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionists.

I'm a common-sense-inclusionist: if the article is not blatantly irrelevant for WP, then it should be kept. "Blatantly irrelevant" means:

RK1: hoaxes, pure delusions,
RK2: incoherent and confused mess,
RK3: blatant self-promotion,
RK4: neologisms used for self-promotion and political purposes and
RK5: failed neologisms.

Places for discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Category:AfD debates (Science and technology), a category where the current deletable science and technology debates are kept,

Future:

Tools:

Checklinks

Article quality

The article quality regarding religion and philosophy is low. Articles on religion attracts lots of scribbling activity from outside street preachers that disrupts the articles, the articles acquires trivial side information only, and very often POV-pusher user filibusters the pages with WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.

Classification of bad quality articles

The classification is prototypical, not regular. It is based on experience of perceived (subjective) flaws of the articles in question, thinking according the principle that an article should be readable for the not-quite inaugurated, correct, accurate, informative and present a coherent topic.

D-class: Too big mess

Description:

the article contains pretty reliable information, but in disorder, the wrong kind of information, and too detailed to be of any real use for the student

Cleanup:

build a new article kernel, where intro, definitions and background is thorougly worked through

Todo:

Moses
Stellar classification (formerly?)

D-class: Definition/Cause confusion

Description:

the article confuses an observational phenomenon with the most commonly theorized underlying mechanism/cause

Cleanup:

????

Todo:

Type II supernova (formerly?)
Linguistic modality (confuses modality with mood)

E-class: Street preachers sermon

Description:

an article that has a name covering a valid coherent term/topic
the article is full of WP:OR, personal opinions, primary source citations (f.ex. bible citations) to support those opinions, the entire article providing a WP:SYNTH and a blatant non-WP:NPOV,

Cleanup:

street preachers sermons should be totally rewritten, or in the case that the sermon overwrites a former real article, it should be reverted

Todo:

F-class: Pseudo-term article

Description:

an in-coherent collection of various terms and topics of the same name, collected into one article falsely giving the impression that there is a coherent concept related to in the article
the collection is not a list of related or species-similar objects/topics
the collection instead promotes a certain POV by producing an ESSAY

Cleanup:

pseudo-term articles should be ripped apart into real topics, and the topics should be redistributed into other articles

Todo:

Militant atheism, no such term
Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences#Pagan philosophical influence falsely connects the "modalism" that orthodox churches accuse Augustine for with "modal logic" contrafactually claimed to be created by Aristotle, Platon and "Pythagorus"

Cabinet of horrors

From Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences

Modalism

Modal logic has its origin in Hellenic philosopher, including Pythagorus, Plato and Aristotle, who based their dialects on Monism as the concept that ontology can be reduced to either a single detectable substance (called substance theory) and or a single being (the concept of the Absolute).^{[boink 1]} Modal logic is by definition any system of logic that deals with possibility, potential and necessarily (which is dependent on actuality). See also Aristotle's Potentiality and actuality.^{[boink 2]} Modalism is the way ontologically that Hellenic pagan philosophy starting with Pythagorus and following through Plato, Aristotle and Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, analytically and dialectically deconstructed human consciousness and existence in order to represent their view of the monad as the "idea" of God and ousia as the essence or universal of being.^{[boink 3]} Modalistic in the idea of God as of a single substance or being (ousia)^{[boink 4]} called the monad that then emanates sequentially various realities (hypostasis). These realities which then amalgamate with one another i.e. as in the Neoplatonism of Plotinus; the Monad (the dunamis, potentia) and the Dyad (creator, energeia, actus) both emanate the Triad, Trinity (Spirit or World Soul). Plotinus teaching that energy or actus has to have force or potential in order to emanate (dunamis or potential defined as indeterminate vitality according to A. H. Armstrong). These realities coalesce into the material world (cosmos) or Universe. Here Thomas Aquinas in his Five Proofs of the Existence of God starts from the pagan philosophers rational proofs of the existence of the Pagan creator God.^{[boink 5]} Hellenistic paganism's God which is modalist God of idealism. These hypostases appear as a descending hierarchy reciprocally reflecting each other.^{[boink 6]} The Orthodox teach that God is not of a substance that is comprehensible since God the Father has no origin and is eternal and infinite. God the Father is the origin, source of the Trinity not God in substance or essence.^{[boink 7]} Therefore the consciousness of God is not obtainable to created beings not in this life or the next (see apophatism). Though through co-operation with God (called theosis) Mankind can become good (God like) and from such a perspective reconcile himself to the Knowledge of Good and the Knowledge of Evil he consumed in the Garden of Eden (see the Fall of Man). Thus returning himself to the proper relationship with his creator and source of being.

Boink

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ Aristotle East and West By David Bradshaw pg 270 Published by Cambridge University Press, 2004 ISBN 0-521-82865-1, 9780521828659 [3]
^ St John Damascene gives the following definition of the conceptual value of the two terms in his Dialectic: Ousia is a thing that exists by itself, and which has need of nothing else for its consistency. Again, ousia is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another. Pg 50 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
^ Thomas Aquinas, ch 13 Of God and His Creatures Chapter Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God [4] "WE will put first the reasons by which Aristotle proceeds to prove the existence of God from the consideration of motion as follows."
^ Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church V Losskypg49
^ pgs 50-59 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)

On the talk page: Modalism bogus discourse

The section modalism seems to be a mess of confusion upon confusion, so let me relate to how I believe:

Aristoteles did not invent modal logic, he made a treatise that modern researchers interpret as a precursor to modal logic, Avicenna did however invent a temporal logic, and that is a modal logic,
Plato wasn't involved in this,
Pythagoras has nothing in common with neither Aristoteles nor Plato, he is irrelevant in the context,
modal logic has nothing whatsoever to do with modalism,
Aristoteles's and Plato's God theories have nothing to do with modal logic,

so the statement

Modalism is the way ontologically that Hellenic pagan philosophy starting with Pythagorus and following following through Plato, Aristotle and Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, analytically and dialectically deconstructed human consciousness ... blablabla

is the purest bombastic bullshit I've seen on Wikipedia: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:HOAX, WP:NOTESSAY, ... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive mechanisms

Editing in own-POV topics

Inflating blatantly unreliable data blocks:

A case of essentially benevolent POV-misrepresentation of sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, made articles on a certain theme endemically unreliable.

Another constructive existential intermittently but rarely constructed discourses based on leaps-to-conclusions.

A POVvy interaction

Topic avoidance

Some supporting-beam topics are systemically avoided:

theology: obviously too complex, since it involves advanced logic perspective switches,
...

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] Aristotle East and West By David Bradshaw pg 270 Published by Cambridge University Press, 2004 ISBN 0-521-82865-1, 9780521828659 [3]

[4] St John Damascene gives the following definition of the conceptual value of the two terms in his Dialectic: Ousia is a thing that exists by itself, and which has need of nothing else for its consistency. Again, ousia is all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another. Pg 50 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)

[5] Thomas Aquinas, ch 13 Of God and His Creatures Chapter Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God [4] "WE will put first the reasons by which Aristotle proceeds to prove the existence of God from the consideration of motion as follows."

[6] Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church V Losskypg49

[Eastern_Church_1997-7] s 50-59 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)

[boink 1]

[boink 2]

[boink 3]

[boink 4]

[boink 5]

[boink 6]

[boink 7]